Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his Council Tax account. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has apologized for its error and offered suitable financial redress.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his Council Tax (CT) account. He says it closed his account using incorrect information and then failed to re-open it, instead setting up a new account. This resulted in arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information put in by Mr X with his complaint. I have also considered the Council's response.
5. Mr X now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X complains the Council closed his CT account in error using wrong information from a third party. He says when it found the third party information was incorrect it did not reinstate the existing account. Instead,the Council opened a new account, without his direct debit, meaning it went into arrears.
7. Mr X complains the Council then sent him threatening letters. He says when he complained to the Council about its actions it delayed its response and did not move his complaint through its process properly.
8. Mr X complains the Council’s apology is ‘mealy mouth’ and unfelt and is not recompense for the inconvenience it has caused him.
9. The Council apologized for the time taken to deal with Mr X’s complaint. It explained the CT team received information Mr X’s property was occupied by a thrid party and closed the account. The Council says its CT team sent an e-bill to Mr X with his closing statement. It appreciates Mr X may not have received this.
10. The Council accepts it should have reinstated Mr X’s account when he contacted the CT team later. It says this was simply human error. Because of the inconvenience it caused Mr X the Council offered him financial redress at stage one of the complaint.
11. The Council explained it had not moved Mr X’s complaint to stage two of the procedure because the service treated it as a continuation of the same matter dealt with at stage one.
12. The Council said its stage two response acknowledged its service failures. It also increased the amount of financial redress offered to meet the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
13. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council needed to change their systems and show understanding when CT payers made mistakes. Mr X felt there were different standards applied to CT payers and the Council had no standards at all.

Analysis

14. The Ombudsman cannot require the Council to change its systems when the problem Mr X encountered was down to human error. When individuals make mistakes that cause injustice we hold the Council responsible and expect it to provide redress.
15. The Council has accepted it has acted with fault. It has apologized, several times, and proposed suitable redress for the inconvenience its actions caused Mr X. The financial redress meets the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
16. 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 Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. Tthe 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 Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman