Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her council tax reduction claim. Ms X had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect her to have used this right.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to correctly administer her Council Tax Reduction (CTR) claim and delayed in responding to her and informing her that it could not access the documents she had provided.
2. Ms X said this caused her financial hardship and a decline in her mental and physical health.
3. Ms X wanted the Council to backdate the CTR to account for its delay or apply discretionary relief to write of her arrears. Ms X also wanted the Council to apologise and review its handling of CTR applications and complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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. The Council received Ms X’s CTR application in October 2024, its assessment awarded CTR from November 2024 onwards. Ms X asked the Council to backdate the CTR to November 2023, but it refused this as Ms X could not show good cause for not applying earlier.
10. Ms X complained the Council delayed in informing her it could not access documents she had provided, responding to her correspondence and in handling her complaint. The Council apologised for these issues and removed the court cost from Ms X’s account as a gesture of goodwill but confirmed the Council Tax debt still required payment.
11. Any dispute as to liability for Council tax is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal. The Tribunal is an independent, expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. It is reasonable to have expected Ms X to have used their appeal right because the Valuation Tribunal was set up by parliament to consider such disputes.
12. I note Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s communication and complaints handling delays, however, had the Council responded quicker, the outcome of its assessment would be the same, so any injustice caused in not significant enough to justify our involvement.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to have expected her to use her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. There is insufficient injustice to justify investigating remaining issue and we will not investigate complaints handling as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman