Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of council tax bills issued to the complainant. This is because it is unlikely he would find any fault by the Council warranting investigation or that any injustice has been caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council sent him incorrect council tax bills a number of times. This caused issues with his registration on the electoral roll and affected his credit score.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read what Mr X has told us about his complaint, the Council’s complaint response and correspondence with Mr X, including the council tax bills. I invited Mr X to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X moved into a flat in October 2019. The Council sent him a council tax bill dated 8 October. It did not include a single person discount. A letter was omitted from his first name and Mr X he says his address was wrongly described as 23T Brown Road instead of Flat T, 23 Brown Road.
5. Mr X returned the moving-in form to the Council on 11 October, confirming his entitlement to the single person discount. He asked the Council to amend the address from 23T Brown Road to Flat T, 23 Brown Road. The Council sent a new bill including the discount, but with no change to his name and address. It sent a further bill with the corrected name but the same address. In January 2020 the Council issued a bill with the address set out in the way Mr X had requested. Each bill gave him time to make the payment. He did not have to pay an extra amount before the discount was applied.
6. Mr X complained to the Council. In its final response it said there was no doubt the bills were for him and he had received them. There was no other property known as 23T Brown Road. He could contact its Electoral Registration team with any query about the address affecting his credit score. It also told Mr X this was not a matter for the Local Government Ombudsman.

Assessment

7. It is clear from Mr X’s correspondence with the Council that he received all the council tax bills it sent him, including the one dated 23 October applying the single person discount. He also knew the correct amount and dates the payments were due.
8. I have not seen any evidence indicating that describing the address as 23T Brown Road (instead of Flat T, 23 Brown Road) was incorrect or affected Mr X’s registration on the electoral roll. I do not consider omitting a letter from Mr X’s name, which the Council then corrected, or describing the address as 23T Brown Road amounts to fault warranting investigation by us.
9. I have not seen any evidence to show that Mr X was caused any injustice because a letter was initially omitted from his name on the bill, or the way the Council described his address on the council tax bills. He has not been asked to pay the wrong amount or incurred any costs.
10. The Council said in its response “this is not a matter for the Local Government Ombudsman”. It would have been better had it confirmed what it had said in an earlier email to Mr X, that a complaint could be escalated to us after the Council had been allowed the opportunity to deal with it. But this did not prevent Mr X from bringing his complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman