Summary: There was avoidable delay by the Council in refunding council tax to Ms X. The Council’s apology and payment of £50 compensation has already suitably put right the stress and financial pressure the delay caused Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council delayed unreasonably in refunding her council tax after she moved home. Ms X says the Council caused her unnecessary stress, including blaming her for not telling officers she lived with a hearing impairment. Ms X wants the Council to improve how it handles council tax refunds and to train officers to deal effectively with people living with disabilities.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I have:

• considered Ms X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• contacted Ms X by email about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting information about the complaint;
• shared information provided by the Council with Ms X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Ms X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Ms X and her family used to live in the Council’s area but then moved away. Ms X’s council tax account for her former home was a joint account in her and her partner’s names. Ms X telephoned the Council to let it know she had moved. The Council said it would issue a final council tax bill for the property up to the date Ms X had moved.
6. After the call, the Council sent a final bill to Ms X’s new home. The bill showed the Council needed to refund some council tax. The bill said the Council paid any refunds direct to bank accounts. The refund was automatic for council tax paid by direct debit, otherwise, people needed to give the Council their bank details. Ms X did not pay her council tax by direct debit. The bill gave details of how people could get in touch by letter, email, telephone and using the Council’s website.
7. About two months later, Ms X telephoned the Council wanting to know why she had not received the council tax refund. Ms X and the Council discussed refunding the council tax to Ms X’s bank account. The Council did not tell Ms X that, because she and her partner had a joint council tax account, it could not refund to her sole bank account without her partner’s consent. The next day, Ms X emailed the Council with her bank account details.
8. A few weeks later, Ms X and her partner received a final reminder to pay council tax for their new home in another council’s area.
9. After about six weeks and still waiting for the refund, Ms X made a third telephone call to the Council. During this call, the Council told Ms X it could not pay the money into her bank account as the council tax account had been in joint names. The Council said it needed her partner’s consent to refund the money to Ms X. Ms X, referring to her hearing impairment, passed the phone to her partner.
10. Ms X complained to the Council about the delay and poor service she had received. Ms X also said “…due to the fact I am deaf I was struggling to hear…” but the Council’s officers ‘did not really try to help me understand what was being said’.
11. Meanwhile, having received the necessary written consent from Ms X’s partner, the Council refunded the council tax to Ms X’s bank account.
12. In responding to Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s position, in summary, was to:

• recognise its failure to explain about ‘consents’ for refunds from council tax accounts in joint names;
• accept it missed the opportunity to resolve Ms X’s case during her second telephone call; and
• regret Ms X felt officers had not given her suitable help but, Ms X had not mentioned her disability.

The Council apologised to Ms X and paid her £50 compensation for its delay in processing the council tax refund.

13. Ms X said the Council was blaming her for not telling it she was deaf, and its complaint response did not address the stress and pressure caused by its delay.

Consideration

14. Ms X’s complaint raises two main issues: the delayed council tax refund and the Council’s handling of her hearing impairment.
15. On delay, the Council refunded council tax to Ms X four months after she first telephoned to let it know she had moved home. This is a long time and yet, the bill the Council sent Ms X explained it needed bank account details to make the refund. I have seen no evidence Ms X provided her bank account details after getting the bill. I do not therefore find the Council at fault in not refunding the council tax during the two months before Ms X made her second telephone call.
16. The Council has already accepted it failed, during Ms X’s second call, to explain the need for her partner’s consent before it could refund the council tax to her. So, when Ms X provided her bank account details after that call, the Council was at fault in not dealing with ‘consent’ until Ms phoned again two months later. The Council then acted quickly and refunded the council tax to Ms X’s bank account.
17. Ms X also felt the Council blamed her for not raising her hearing impairment. The council tax bill sent to Ms X gave different ways for people to contact the Council. And, on balance, I do not criticise the Council for not asking if Ms X needed any reasonable adjustments in speaking to officers when she made contact by telephone. When Ms X referred to her hearing difficulties, the Council asking about reasonable adjustments did not arise as she passed the phone to her partner. So, while I recognise the Council’s response upset Ms X, I do not read the Council’s comments as ‘blaming’ her. Rather, the Council was saying that, until it knew Ms X lived with a hearing impairment, it could not act to make any reasonable adjustments. I do not therefore find the Council at fault on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I completed my investigation finding avoidable delay by the Council in refunding council tax to Ms X, which caused Ms X worry and frustration. I also find the Council’s apology and £50 compensation has already suitably put right the worry and frustration that delay caused Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman