Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council applied discounts to his council tax bill. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not correctly applied discounts when calculating his council tax liability. He says he should not be charged council tax due to his severe mental impairment. He also complains that information about his council tax has been sent to his live-in carer in error, and that officers have been aggressive towards him. He says this has affected his physical well-being. He would like an apology from the Council and a commitment to learn and do more to support disabled residents.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated events since April 2019. My reasons for not investigating earlier events are explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the complaint made by Mr X and the documents he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
10. I have also seen and taken account of the Council’s council tax support scheme.
11. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

12. The Local Government Financing Act 1992 gives councils the power to levy and collect a dwelling tax. This is known as council tax.
13. Council tax calculations assume two adults live in a property. The law allows councils to disregard certain groups of people when calculating council tax. This includes people who are severely mentally impaired, and carers who meet certain conditions.
14. If a person with severe mental impairment lives alone, they can receive a 100% discount on their council tax. If they live with another person who is not severely mentally impaired but is disregarded for another reason, they can receive a 50% discount. If they live with a person who is not disregarded for the purpose of council tax, they can receive a 25% discount.
15. To receive a discount because of severe mental impairment, the applicant must have been certified by a medical practitioner. They must also be entitled to, though not necessarily receiving, at least one disability-related benefit.
16. Aside from the nationally-applied discounts, councils also have their own locally determined council tax support schemes. In the Council which is subject of this complaint, the scheme awards a maximum reduction of 85% on a person’s council tax liability. It also offers a council tax hardship scheme which may award a further 15% discount in certain circumstances. The Council requires applicants to complete a form to be considered for the hardship scheme.
17. The law says liability for council tax lies with the owner or tenant of a property. When two people are living together as a couple, both of them are responsible for paying the whole charge.

What happened

18. Mr X lives with a live-in carer, Mr J, who is his former partner. Mr X is the named tenant of the property and moved there in 2016.
19. Mr X received an 85% reduction on his council tax liability under the Council’s own scheme due to his low income. The Council had previously arranged with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to take payments from Mr X’s benefits towards an existing council tax debt.
20. In April 2019, Mr X contacted the Council about his council tax liability. There is no recording of the discussion which took place with the Council officer but there are some written notes.
21. Mr X advised the Council he and Mr J were no longer a couple, but Mr J was continuing to provide him with care. The Council suggested it could reduce his council tax liability by 50% due to his severe mental impairment and living with a carer. It said he could make a separate claim for council tax support which would leave him with 15% outstanding. The Council could then consider a discretionary hardship payment for the remaining balance. This would reduce his liability to zero. The Council also suggested it could “look favourably” at his debts from previous years if there were any outstanding once it had applied the relevant discounts.
22. The following day Mr X called the Council again. He said the Council had suggested he was committing fraud and it had not applied the discounts correctly. The Council advised the information it received from the DWP suggested he and Mr J were still in a relationship. However, it was willing to overlook this so Mr J could be disregarded for the purpose of calculating liability for council tax.
23. Mr X complained to the Council. In its first response, the Council said it had not accused Mr X of committing fraud. It set out how it had calculated the discounts, council tax support and hardship payment Mr X may be entitled to. It reiterated that it might be able to write off outstanding debts from previous years once Mr X had made the necessary applications. It encouraged Mr X to return the forms it had sent him.
24. Mr X was dissatisfied, and the Council investigated his complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure. The response mirrored its previous one. It directed Mr X to the Ombudsman, and he made his complaint to us at the end of April.
25. Mr X continued to dispute the Council’s position on his liability. He said he had difficulties completing forms and the Council should offer him a 100% discount because of his severe mental impairment. He said the Council had accused him of having two carers living in his home. He said the Council was trying to increase his liability for council tax, and applying a benefit cap.
26. Following several email exchanges, the Council offered to meet with Mr X to support him to complete the necessary forms. It asked its officer with responsibility for vulnerable customers to liaise with Mr X.
27. On 23 May, Mr X met with officers to discuss his liability. He gave verbal consent for the Council to contact his GP to confirm his severe mental impairment. The Council agreed it had enough information available to offer a further discount for Mr J being a live-in carer. The Council agreed to write off any residual balance once the discounts had been applied. At the same meeting, Mr X provided a letter asking the Council to send all future correspondence about his council tax and council tax support to Mr J.
28. The Council wrote to the DWP on the same day asking it to stop taking payments from Mr X’s benefits. There appears to have been a delay in the DWP actioning this, but the Council said it would refund any payments it received in the meantime.
29. The Council met with Mr X and Mr J again on 19 June. It had received confirmation of Mr X’s severely mentally impaired status from his GP. It removed Mr J’s name from the account as he was not a joint tenant. It cancelled all recovery action, agreed to refund all payments made and wrote off any outstanding debts up to 2019.
30. The Council refunded all payments received from the DWP which were deductions from Mr X’s benefits between October 2016 and June 2019.
31. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not send written confirmation of the amended council tax demand notice or council tax award letters. It said these can be difficult to follow when there have been several backdated changes. It said it telephoned Mr X to advise him it had made the changes he had asked for and confirm the total sum of his refund. It said this enabled the Council to ensure Mr X understood its actions and the impact on his council tax liability. It said it took account of Mr X’s condition when deciding to take this approach.

Analysis

32. Mr X believed his severe mental impairment should exempt him from paying council tax. This would be the case if he lived alone but, as he lives with his carer, the way the Council has calculated his discount is correct.
33. The Council is entitled to seek confirmation from Mr X’s GP that he meets the criteria to be considered severely mentally impaired. The Council made a reasonable adjustment to gather this information by seeking Mr X’s verbal consent rather than completing a form.
34. I have not seen any evidence the Council accused Mr X of fraud or that it assumed at any point he had two live-in carers.
35. Mr X also believed the Council was trying to increase his liability for council tax. But I have seen no evidence of this. The evidence suggests the Council was looking to reduce Mr X’s liability as much as possible.
36. There is no evidence in written communication that officers behaved inappropriately towards Mr X. Without telephone recordings or independent witnesses to meetings, it is not possible for me to make a finding on officers’ conduct during any calls or meetings which took place.
37. Mr X alleges the officer who responded to his complaint at the first stage was not suitably impartial. He said the officer had overheard the telephone call between Mr X and another officer which led to the complaint. The officer who responded had not had previous contact with Mr X or been involved in making decisions about his council tax liability before the complaint. Therefore, I am satisfied they were a suitable person to undertake the complaint investigation.
38. Mr X says the Council only agreed to act when it realised it had erred in sending bills and summonses to Mr J. But I have seen no evidence of this. On the contrary, from Mr X’s first contact with the Council in April 2019 it was looking to reduce his liability.
39. After the first meeting with Mr X, the Council recognised that where residents may experience mental health difficulties, it can be helpful to meet face-to-face sooner rather than later.
40. I recognise Mr X has found this episode stressful. However, I cannot say the Council was responsible for this given it has acted without fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. I have not investigated the Council’s failure to apply discounts before April 2019. Mr X says he provided the Council with information about his severe mental impairment and Mr J’s status as a carer as early as 2014. There is also some evidence Mr X advised the Council that he may qualify for a discount in May 2016. However, these are late complaints. The Council has now put Mr X back in the position he would have been in if it had applied the discount earlier. Therefore, there is nothing further to be gained for Mr X by investigating the Council’s historical actions.
42. I have not investigated the Council sending council tax bills and summonses to Mr J. There is no evidence Mr X complained about this when he first became aware of it. As Mr X has now named Mr J as his representative in the matters of council tax and council tax support, the injustice to him of this error is not significant. If Mr J has concerns about how the Council has considered his own liability for council tax, he can make a complaint in his own right or consider an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation and have not found fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman