Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 346)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 28 Mar 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: the Ombudsman has stopped investigating Mr X’s complaint because it was made too late and he had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge the Council’s decisions on his claim for a Council Tax Reduction.

The complaint

  1. Mr X is liable to pay Council Tax. He complains that he was expected to pay full Council Tax from 2015 to 2019 when he was on a low income and claiming Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Mr X was in dispute with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about his entitlement to ESA. He says there were times when he had no income but the Council still required him to pay full Council Tax. The Council also added extra costs to his account for non-payment.
  2. Mr X says the Council did not take his complaints seriously and ignored his evidence. He wants the Council to award a full Council Tax Reduction for 2015 to 2019 and remove the extra costs it added to his account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but it also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. A complaint is late when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.
  3. The law says the Ombudsman cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has, or had, a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. However, we may investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have appealed.
  4. The Valuation Tribunal considers appeals about decisions on Council Tax liability and Council Tax Support or Reduction.
  5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the evidence Mr X sent with his complaint. I also read the Council’s replies to his complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. The Council sent me some information about direct deductions from Mr X’s benefit.
  2. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Councils that are billing authorities for Council Tax must adopt a Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme. CTR reduces the Council Tax bill for people who are on a low income. CTR is means-tested and the Council Tax payer must make a claim for the benefit.
  2. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent body which considers appeals against decisions made by councils about entitlement to CTR. Before a claimant can appeal, they must ask the council to look at the decision again. If the council refuses to change the decision, or it has not replied within two months, the claimant can then appeal to the Tribunal. The time limit for appealing to the tribunal is two months after the council has given its written decision.

Recovery of a Council Tax debt

  1. If Council Tax due is not paid after a reminder notice, councils can apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. This allows them to recover the Council Tax owed by deductions from the person’s benefits or earnings. Alternatively, they can pass the Liability Order to civil enforcement agents who visit the person’s home to recover the debt or seize goods. A charge is added to the account when the council issues a summons and applies for a liability order.

Mr X’s complaint

  1. Mr X complains about decisions the Council made about his entitlement to Council Tax Reduction from 2015 onwards. He first made this complaint to us on 24 July 2018. We decided he had not completed the Council’s complaints procedure first so we asked the Council to investigate it. After getting the Council’s final response, Mr X resubmitted the complaint to us in late November 2018.
  2. Mr X’s complaint about decisions the Council made on his claim for Council Tax Reduction before 24 July 2017 is late. These events happened more than 12 months before he first made a complaint to us.
  3. In considering whether to exercise discretion to investigate this complaint, I took into account that this is Mr X’s fourth complaint to the Ombudsman since May 2015 about the Council’s handling of his Council Tax account and his claim for a Council Tax Reduction. Since he has used our service before, I do not consider there are good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate the parts of his complaint that are late.
  4. I also had to consider whether Mr X could have appealed to an independent statutory tribunal to challenge the Council’s decisions on his entitlement to a Council Tax Reduction or the amount of benefit awarded.
  5. He complained that the Council did not award a full Council Tax Reduction for periods when he had no income because the DWP had suspended or cancelled his ESA.
  6. In response to Mr X’s Stage Two complaint, the Council explained that his Council Tax Reduction stopped with effect from 7 June 2015 after the DWP notified them his ESA had ended. The Council sent Mr X a change of circumstances form so it could reassess his entitlement to CTR based on his new income. It says Mr X did not return the form so it could not decide whether he qualified for CTR. It made the point that it is Mr X’s responsibility to report changes in his circumstances and provide evidence and information the Council requests in order to assess CTR.
  7. The Council did not receive a new claim for CTR from Mr X until July 2017. The Council decided not to award CTR then because he did not reply to a request for evidence about his income. The Council notified him of this decision on 18 August 2017. It sent him a further notification on 14 September 2017 after it reconsidered his claim. It did not change the decision and advised Mr X he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the decision. Mr X did not appeal.
  8. Following Mr X’s recent complaints, the Council contacted the DWP to check the periods when Mr X received ESA. The DWP confirmed it had awarded ESA for two periods in 2017/18. Based on that evidence, the Council then awarded CTR from 23 August to 13 November 2017 and from 7 March to 26 April 2018. It also found out Mr X had been awarded Universal Credit from 13 August 2018 and awarded CTR.
  9. However, even after this CTR was awarded retrospectively, Mr X still owes a substantial amount of Council Tax for the 2017/18 and 2018/19 years.
  10. Mr X wants the Council to cancel all the extra charges it added to his Council Tax account. The Council added £65 when it issued a summons and a further £75 compliance fee every year apart from 2015/16.
  11. However, the Council is entitled to add these charges at the summons stage and if it then applies to the Magistrates Court for a Liability Order. On the evidence I have seen so far, it was not fault for the Council to add these charges to Mr X’s account because he had an outstanding Council Tax debt every year.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have stopped investigating Mr X’s complaint because:
      1. part of the complaint is late - it is about decisions the Council made more than 12 months before he first made this complaint to us; and
      2. it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge the Council’s decisions on CTR if he disagreed with them.
  2. Mr X could have appealed against the Council’s decision that he was not entitled to CTR or if he considered it had not awarded the correct amount of benefit. The Council informed Mr X about his right of appeal in letters sent on 14 September 2017 and 15 January 2018. There seems to be no good reason why Mr X did not appeal at the time if he disagreed with the Council’s decisions.
  3. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to add charges to Mr X’s account when it took recovery action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings