Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (18 014 266)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Mar 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained for Mr Y, and her mother Mrs Z, about the Council’s handling of their Council Tax account. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has used its discretion, where the regulations allow, not to recover the money it says Mr Y owed on the account.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains for Mr Y, and her mother Mrs Z, about the Council’s handling of their Council Tax (CT) account. She says the Council has failed to consider the information provided by Mr Y and Mrs Z in calculating their CT liability and it should take responsibility for its error.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the information put in by Miss X with her complaint. I have also considered the Council's response to it.
  2. Miss X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Miss X provided documentation to show she had written to the Council, for Mr Y and Mrs Z, asking for an appeal against its calculation of their CT liability.
  2. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s appeal for over a year. When it wrote to Miss X, it stated it had written off part of the CT liability, and provided a bill for over £3,000 it said Mr Y owed on the account.
  3. Miss X disputed the Council’s calculation of Mr Y’s CT liability. She said Mr Y and Mrs Z had given the Council the correct information many years earlier, in 2003, to allow it to calculate their liability properly.
  4. Miss X said it was not their fault the Council had failed to record their circumstances correctly. She said any error was the Council’s fault, and Mr Y should not have to pay for its mistake.
  5. The Council considered the information provided by Miss X. It decided to exercise its discretion, where the regulations allowed, and not recover any money owed before March 2013.
  6. The Council explained replacing CT Benefit with the CT Reduction Scheme from April 2013 meant it could not exercise discretion from then. It said because Mr Y had made payments on the CT account the balance now stood at 81p.

Analysis

  1. The Council has reviewed Miss X’s complaint. It has taken suitable action to address it. The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint if the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to redress Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to redress Miss X’s complaint.

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