Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing a final council tax bill. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the time taken by the Council to send a final council tax bill. He also complains of poor customer service.

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 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 Mr X’s letters to the Council. I considered the Council’s responses and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X wrote to the Council on 19 July to say he had completed the sale of his home on 19 July. He asked for a final council tax bill.
5. Mr X sent a chaser on 6 August and complained on 9 September.
6. The Council issued a final bill for £53 on 6 September. Mr X received the bill on 13 September.
7. In response to his complaint the Council apologised for delay. It explained that work is dealt with in date order and, due to summer annual leave, a backlog had built up. It said that a hold had been put on the account to ensure no recovery action was taken pending officers processing the final bill. It agreed there had been a delay in processing his first letter but once it reached the front of the work queue on 5 September it was dealt with quickly. The Council gave Mr X information about the volume of work it received during July and said that if officers spent time acknowledging letters it would add to the delays in dealing with the actual issues.
8. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He says the time taken by the Council was unacceptable and the lack of an acknowledgement, or reply for six weeks, caused stress and uncertainty. He also complains of poor customer service.

Assessment

9. Mr X feels the delay was unacceptable and he has experienced poor customer service. But he has not been caused sufficient injustice to require an investigation. The Council could not produce a final bill until September but it placed a hold on the account so that nothing happened until it was closed. Mr X did not incur any financial loss and nothing negative happened during the period of the delay. Mr X has explained he felt stressed because the Council did not acknowledge his letter and he did not know what was happening or if the new owners would be wrongly billed. But, while I appreciate he had a period of uncertainty, this is not sufficient injustice to require an investigation.
10. The Council provided reasons for the delay, apologised, and explained that acknowledging letters would add to the delays. Mr X rejects the reasons for the delay and has suggested the Council should reorganise how it manages annual leave. But, while Mr X remains dissatisfied, not every delay by a council requires an investigation and, as I have said, there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman