Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 152)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 06 Jan 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision it could not refund the complainant an overpayment of Council Tax. This is because she was not named on the tax bill during the relevant period. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Ms B, complains the Council has refused to refund her an overpayment on Council Tax.

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 reviewed Ms B’s correspondence with the Council.
  2. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms B has lived in her property since 1989. With the introduction of Council Tax in 1993, Ms B’s (then) husband registered their bill with the Council in his name.
  2. In 2001, Ms B and her husband separated. At that point Ms B put the Council Tax bill in her name.
  3. It was recently established the house had been placed in the wrong Council Tax band in 1993. This meant Ms B, and her ex-husband, had been overpaying their Council Tax, and a refund was due.
  4. However, while the Council refunded Ms B the overpayment from 2001 on, it said it could only refund the overpayment from 1993 to 2001 to her ex-husband.
  5. Ms B complained to the Council. The Council explained that, although the property had been jointly-owned by Ms B and her ex-husband until 2001, it could only pay a refund according to the Council Tax records. As the bill was solely in her ex-husband’s name between 1993 and 2001, it was to him the refund had to be made. In its final response to the complaint, the Council’s Chief Internal Auditor confirmed this was correct.

Back to top

Legislative background

  1. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 defines ‘joint and several liability’ for Council Tax accounts. It says:

The responsibility of any one member of a group for the actions and debts of any or all of the others, and the responsibility of the group as a whole for the actions or debts of any one member.

  1. It means that in cases of joint liability where any amounts remain unpaid, the Council can act against any of the named parties for all the remaining balance. It is good practice to include joint parties as early as possible and preferably at the start of the billing procedure. But councils can invoke joint and several liability retrospectively later when a council becomes aware of the existence of the other joint party.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. Ms B complains the Council will not refund her for her Council Tax overpayments from between 1993 and 2001. She points out that, if the Council were instead seeking the payment of tax arrears, it would be able to pursue either her or her ex-husband; and it is therefore unfair for the same principle not to apply to a repayment.
  2. Under the rule of ‘joint and several liability’, each person named on a Council Tax bill is responsible for the whole amount. This means the Council can pursue any named person for arrears, even if they paid their ‘share’ at the time.
  3. Ms B is effectively in the reverse situation – a refund is due for a period where she was a joint owner of the property, and as she was liable to pay Council Tax at this time, she considers should be entitled to a share of the refund.
  4. However, Ms B was not named on the Council Tax bill between 1993 and 2001. Although she was liable to pay, in order to pursue her for arrears, the Council would need to first issue a retrospective bill in her name. Under the current circumstances, therefore, it could not pursue Ms B for any hypothetical arrears.
  5. So I am satisfied the Council’s decision is not inconsistent with the ‘joint and several liability’ rule. According to the Council Tax bill for the relevant period, Ms B is eligible neither to be pursued for arrears, nor to receive a refund. Her joint ownership of the property between 1993 and 2001 is not material; ownership does not, in itself, make a person liable to pay Council Tax on a property.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

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