Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has only waived half the fine the complainant incurred while waiting for the Council to answer a council tax question. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, wants the Council to remove the whole fee she incurred while waiting for the Council to answer a council tax query.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe:

• the Council has provided a proportionate remedy; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax

4. The law says people must pay their council tax as billed. If they do not do so the Council will issue a reminder and then a court summons. Court costs are incurred as soon as the Council issues a summons.
5. If someone disputes their council tax, and appeals to the Valuation Tribunal, the law says they must pay, as billed, pending the outcome of the appeal. The Valuation Tribunal considers disputes and council tax liability.

What happened

6. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2019 with a council tax enquiry. The Council put collection of the council tax on hold until it answered the enquiry. The council tax relates to a property for which Ms X is the landlord.
7. The Council replied on 3 September. It answered her question about the council tax discount and said she had paid £444 and still needed to pay £335. The enquiry related to a council tax bill the Council had issued in August 2018.
8. The Council lifted the hold on the account. It sent a payment reminder to Ms X on 25 September. Ms X did not pay so the Council issued a summons on 16 October. The Council charged costs of £82. Ms X paid the council tax and the costs but also complained.
9. Ms X says she delayed payment until she received the summons because the information the Council provided did not answer her question and she did not think the bill was correct. She says she did not receive further information about the bill until she received the summons. She also says she only received an adequate response to her query after visiting the Council. She says the Council took recovery action while she was still in dialogue with the Council over the bill.
10. In response to her complaint the Council apologised for the delay in replying to her enquiry but explained it had not taken any recovery action during this time. It waived half of the summons fee due to the delay. It also said it would review the information on the back of the council tax bill because Ms X said it was confusing.
11. Ms X is dissatisfied with the response. She says the Council should waive the whole fine. She wants an additional refund of £41.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because the Council has already provided a fair remedy. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s question but it took no action during this time. It only took action after it had responded to Ms X. It did not issue the summons until it had sent a reminder and about six weeks had passed since issuing the response. Ms X incurred the fee because she did not pay as billed, during the period when the Council was actively seeking payment. In this context the Council’s decision to waive half the fee is fair. Ms X would not have received a summons, or incurred any costs, if she had paid, as billed, after receiving the Council’s response in early September.
13. Ms X says she was still uncertain that the bill was correct which was why she delayed paying. However, the law says people must pay as billed, even if they are in dispute. The reminder would have warned Ms X of the consequences of not paying. Ms X could have paid and then continued to pursue the Council for more information. If it was subsequently found that the bill was wrong, the Council would have made a refund if she had overpaid.
14. I also will not start an overpayment because, while Ms X asserts the Council should refund the remaining £41, a despite over this amount is not sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman