Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to his council tax liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the substantive matter falls outside our jurisdiction as Mr B has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed to apply the council tax single person discount for the periods when he was the only person living in his home. He also complains about the way the Council dealt with this matter and that it provided him with a poor, disjointed and unprofessional service for which he should be compensated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. 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’. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr B and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2016 Mr B completed an online application for the council tax Single Person Discount (SPD). On the application he stated his partner, Ms X, had permanently vacated their flat.
8. The Council applied the discount and set up a new account in Mr B’s sole name. Mr B continued to receive the SPD until March 2019 when the Council, receiving information that Ms X had remained on the tenancy agreement for the flat since 2016, removed the SPD and reopened the account in joint names.
9. The Council notified Mr B of this and subsequently received communication from both Mr B and Ms X relating to the time Ms X had not lived in the flat. Based on the information provided, the Council satisfied itself that the SPD did not apply during the periods in question and that the liability for council tax from 2016 to 2019 was a shared liability between the two parties. It took into account that Ms X had remained on the tenancy, had not maintained a permanent residence elsewhere and had continued to pay rent and bills for the flat.
10. During the Council’s consideration of this matter it did set up a further account in Mr B’s sole name and applied the SPD. However, on receipt of additional information, it deleted this account and re-instated the original joint account.
11. Mr B complained to the Council about its poor handling of matters and that he should receive the SPD between 2016 and 2019. The Council responded to his complaint and advised him that it considered Ms X’s main residence during the period in question to have been the flat they shared and so the decision not to award Mr B the SPD was correct.
12. It gave Mr B details of the Valuation Tribunal if he wished to lodge an appeal against its decision on his council tax liability and Mr B has now taken this action.

Assessment

13. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the part of Mr B’s complaint which concerns his entitlement to the SPD and his council tax liability. He has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and so this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and cannot be investigated.
14. While I note Mr B has also complained about the service he received from the Council in connection with this matter, this is a secondary issue and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of it.
15. As we normally expect a complainant to refer data protection and freedom of information matters to the Information Commissioner, we will not investigate Mr B’s dissatisfaction with the responses he has received from the Council to his Subject Access Requests.
16. Mr B also complained about the Council’s lack of response to his claim that a person is fraudulently claiming SPD at another named property. However, we would not expect the Council to provide him with third party information on this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive matter falls outside our jurisdiction as Mr B has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman