Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of eligibility for Council Tax Support. This is mainly because there is no direct link between the Council’s actions and any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that when assessing his eligibility for Council Tax Support (CTS) the Council:
1. repeatedly failed to assess correctly, and wrongly removed, his CTS;
2. asked him for information multiple times and delayed reviewing it;
3. did not consider his need for disability-related communication adjustments and gave unclear explanations;
4. demanded full council tax during a period when he was unwell; and
5. wrongly removed his Exceptional Relief (ER) and only reinstated it after escalation.
2. Mr X says he has experienced significant stress as a result of the time spent responding to the Council’s requests, and financial hardship after his CTS was removed incorrectly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused direct injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained to us about the council tax period 2025/26. Mr X used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about one Council decision about his CTS during this period. In line with paragraph 3 we cannot investigate that decision.
10. If Mr X disagreed with any of the Council’s other decisions about his council tax liability and CTS eligibility during this period it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed them to the Valuation Tribunal. Mr X evidently knew about his appeal right and was able to use it. In line with paragraph 4 we will not investigate those decisions.
11. The Council received new information about Mr X’s circumstances several times during the period he complained to us about. The Council had a duty to act on this by reassessing Mr X’s entitlement to CTS. It is unlikely any investigation by us would find fault in the Council acting on new information, including asking Mr X about this, or decide that it did so with undue delay.
12. Mr X says the Council should have known he needed disability-related adjustments to how the Council communicated with him because of information he gave another government agency. However, there is no evidence the Council was aware of Mr X needing reasonable adjustments until after he complained to it. This was after the events Mr X complained to us about, so does not affect our decision on the complaint. Even if the Council did know earlier and failed to adjust how it communicated with Mr X, it is still likely Mr X would have had to spent time and effort dealing with the matters. Even if that time and effort might have been slightly mitigated by different arrangements, that difference would be unlikely to be significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating this aspect of his complaint on its own.
13. While the Council reassessed Mr X’s eligibility for CTS it was entitled to continue to expect Mr X to pay his council tax. This is the normal position with council tax while any reassessment, review or appeal is under way. It is unlikely we would find the Council at fault for doing so.
14. The Council has discretion to award ER to help people pay their council tax. Information about ER is publicly available on the Council’s website. Once Mr X applied for ER the Council decided to award it without delay and backdated it to the date of Mr X’s claim. There is no evidence of the Council previously cancelling and reinstating Mr X’s ER. Any injustice Mr X might have experienced by not claiming and receiving ER sooner is therefore not directly linkable to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he appealed against one of the Council’s decisions and it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed about any others he disagreed with. We would be unlikely to find fault in most of the Council’s actions. Any injustice is either not directly linked to the Council’s actions or not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman