Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s council tax support and discretionary hardship claim. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. And it was reasonable to expect her to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council unfairly took council tax enforcement action while she was vulnerable and grieving. She said she claimed council tax support, but the Council refused or ignored her evidence and sent threatening letters. She says the Council’s communication was poor and it did not take account of her hardship and vulnerability. This caused her distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

3. 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).
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council replied that
• Some information it asked for regarding Ms X’s council tax support claim was not necessary as it already had evidence. It apologised for this. However, other information was relevant and still required.
• Ms X had now provided information. It had paid backdated council tax support.
• Telephone calls were not recorded, but it had discussed Ms X’s concerns with an officer to assist with staff training and development.
• It had explained why it needed supporting information in order to consider her discretionary council tax hardship relief application, but she had not provided it.
• It had extended the time for Ms X to send the information.
• It placed a hold on recovery action for two weeks to allow for Ms X’s response.
• If Ms X did not wish to provide the information requested for her council tax hardship relief application, she could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. It provided information about how to appeal.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council explained why it required supporting evidence for her council tax support and hardship relief claims. It paused recovery action for a response.
9. In addition, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not properly consider her council tax hardship relief claim. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. Ms X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding her hardship claim.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman