Woking Borough Council (18 018 439)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 28 Aug 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: the Ombudsman considers there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council regarding its recovery of council tax from Mr K, who is vulnerable.

The complaint

  1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr K, complains the Council failed to take account of his vulnerability when pursuing recovery of a council tax support overpayment and responding to his complaints about this. He says that this led to him suffering anxiety.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated how the Council has dealt with recovery of its overpayments from Mr K and its responses to his complaints about its actions.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
  3. I consider it would be reasonable to expect Mr K to appeal about the Council’s decision it has overpaid housing benefit to the First Tier Tribunal which considers appeals about housing benefit decisions. Mr K could also appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the Council’s decision it has overpaid council tax support. Therefore, I have not investigated these matters.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have also considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr K was receiving full housing benefit and the maximum council tax support. However, in 2018 a friend moved in with him. It does not appear that Mr K advised the Council before his friend moved in.
  2. In September 2018 the Council became aware that another person had moved into Mr K’s home. The Council wrote to Mr K and asked him about this. In November 2018 Mr K confirmed when his friend moved in. The Council revised Mr K’s housing benefit and council tax support claims adding Mr K’s friend to the household. As he was treated as a non-dependent, a deduction to the housing benefit and council tax support claims applied. The Council decided that there was an overpayment of £335 on the housing benefit claim and £174 on the council tax support claim. The Council wrote to Mr K to notify him of its decision and provided details of his right of appeal.
  3. Mr K then advised the Council that his friend had now moved out. In January 2019 the Council revised his claim and reduced the housing benefit overpayment and the council tax support overpayment. The amount due to be paid in council tax was £201.
  4. Mr K complained that the Council was discriminating against him. He said that he was vulnerable due to his special needs and mental health problems. He said no one had explained he would owe the Council money. He explained he could only repay by deductions from his benefits.
  5. The Council replied explaining the reason for the benefit overpayments. It said it could not take deductions from his benefits because it had not been to court regarding his council tax arrears and obtained a liability order. This would also add costs of £84. It advised him to contact it to make an arrangement.
  6. Mr K replied that he wanted to go to court because he believed the Council had discriminated against him. He felt the Council had demanded money unlawfully. He said the Council had never advised him he owed money until the end.
  7. The Council responded noting that he said he was vulnerable. It urged him not to wait until court action as this would add fees of £84. It suggested he could appeal to the benefit department. The Council discussed the issue with Mr K and placed a hold on recovery.
  8. In January Mr K agreed to pay £5 per month. The Council revised the council tax single person discount and confirmed he now owed £98 for 2018/19.
  9. The Council wrote to Mr K in response to his complaint. It said he could appeal if he did not agree the overpayment decisions. It said the Council gave consideration to vulnerability, but this did not exempt him from paying council tax. It said that if he successfully appealed it would refund amounts paid.
  10. Mr K repeated his complaints that the Council was not taking any special measures to take account of his vulnerability. He said it was asking for money without telling him beforehand. He asked what the Council’s policy was.
  11. The Council responded that it had explained why he had been overpaid council tax support as it had sent him benefit notification letters in November 2018 when he had contacted it in November. The Council said it considered vulnerable people on a case by case basis. It said it was aware of his vulnerability and it had previously collected a council tax liability order amount by taking deductions from his benefits rather than referring the debt to enforcement agent which may have caused distress and further costs. It explained that if he kept to the arrangement he had agreed there would be no need for any other recovery action. It advised him he could pursue a formal complaint.
  12. Mr K complained further that he had already made several complaints and the officer responding had not acknowledged his complaints. He said this behaviour was unprofessional. He said the Council had aggressively demanded payment not taking account of his vulnerability, sending him a barrage of demands. It had not provided a copy of its policy on dealing with vulnerable people. He said this was affecting his mental health.
  13. The Council replied that it took mental health, discrimination and vulnerability very seriously. It noted his mental health was affected and expressed concern about this. It said it had agreed an arrangement at £5 per week which was lower than it would normally have accepted because it was aware of his vulnerability. It acknowledged that Mr K had had some difficult conversations with Council officers. It said that dealing with debt could be very stressful. It noted he had hung up on a council tax officer. It explained it had statutory duty to send bills and recovery letters, so this was unavoidable. The Council said it provided training to officers regarding mental health issues. The Council said it had a safeguarding policy and it could contact social services to see if any further information help was available. It said he could seek independent advice through the citizens advice bureau. The Council stated that Mr K had not made the payments of £5 he had agreed. It said it had reset the arrangement to start in two weeks and suggested he contacted the Council if he found it difficult to pay.
  14. Mr K agreed the Council could refer his case to social services, but he repeated his complaint that the Council’s council tax officer had not acted professionally.
  15. The Council replied confirming it had referred his details to its safeguarding team. However, it said that it had nothing further to add to its previous response because it had answered his points earlier.
  16. Mr K complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had discriminated against him because it had not taken account of his vulnerability. He said that Council officers were argumentative and failed to show any empathy. He felt the Council had not properly investigated his complaint about the council tax officer behaving unprofessionally, accepting her word against his. He said it had agreed a £5 per week payment plan but had then changed its mind and started taking money out of his housing benefit. He pointed out that it was only when he complained that it offered support. The Council’s wellbeing officer had now contacted him and had assisted him.
  17. Mr K has not appealed the Council’s decisions that he had been overpaid

Analysis

  1. I have considered the Council’s responses to Mr K’s complaint. While it appears there was some delay progressing his complaints through the Council’s complaint procedure, I have not found fault with the Council’s responses.
  2. The Council explained the reasons for the overpayments of housing benefit and council tax support. It appears the Council’s benefit department was not aware of the friend moving in to the flat until after the event. The Council also gave information about how he could appeal. If Mr K disagrees with the decision, he could pursue this via an appeal.
  3. The Council must follow the statutory council tax billing and recovery process when dealing with a council tax account. This would mean that here were several automatically generated letters and bills sent to Mr K. However, at each stage the Council should consider the customer’s vulnerability or disabilities. The Council has a recovery policy which states that it “recognises when certain debt recovery options are not appropriate where a customer is identified as vulnerable and we will act to personalise the action we take to reflect this” The Council acknowledged that the council tax billing and recovery process was stressful for Mr K, but it had considered his vulnerability because it agreed a very low arrangement at £5 per week. It also explained it urged him to keep to the arrangement because if he did not and it went court this would lead to further costs. The Council reset the arrangement when Mr K did not pay. The Council confirmed its officers were trained to consider mental health issues. It referred him to its adult social services safeguarding team when he explained his mental health issues. I have not found fault here, because the Council has shown it has considered Mr K’s vulnerability.
  4. When answering Mr K’s complaints, the Council stated it had taken account of his vulnerability in the past and currently. It explained how it had considered recovery in his case. I consider the Council’s complaint responses were thorough and I do not find there was a lack of empathy or bias in favour of the Council as Mr K suggests. I do not consider that the responses were aggressive. The Council referred Mr K to its adult social services as a result of his complaint. I do not see that it was at fault in not doing this earlier. It responded to the information Mr K gave it about his vulnerability. If he had required assistance earlier, it was for Mr K to raise this with the relevant service.
  5. Mr K said the Council unfairly changed its mind about how it recovered the overpayment because he agreed to pay £5 per week but it then took £11 per week from his housing benefit. I do not consider this was unfair. There were two overpayments, one of housing benefit and one of council tax support. The arrangement to pay £5 per week was for council tax support. The £11 per week deductions were for the housing benefit overpayment. This is a standard amount. However, if Mr K is suffering from hardship as a result of the overpayment recovery he can ask the Council to consider whether it can reduce this amount.
  6. In its response to my enquiries the Council has offered a further arrangement of £3.70 per week to repay the council tax arrears.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have not found fault and I have completed my investigation and closed the 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