Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about problems the complainant had in closing his council tax account and getting a refund. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a delay in closing his council tax account and problems getting a refund.

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 satisfactory, 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 Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X paid his council tax by direct debit. The Council requested a payment from his bank on 19 September which was paid by his bank on 23 September. On 26 September Mr X reported, on-line, that he had moved.
5. The Council closed the account on 30 October. Before it closed the account it asked for another direct debit payment on 19 October. It issued a new bill in November and invited to apply for a refund of the overpayment. Mr X completed a form to apply for a refund. Mr X received the refund of £197 in early December.
6. Mr X complained about the time taken to close the account and the wording of the refund which he thought was complicated and designed to put people off applying for refunds. He says people should not have to apply for a refund to get back their own money.
7. In response the Council apologised for the service Mr X had received. It explained that the volume of work meant it could not close his account until 30 October and this meant it could not stop the October direct debit. It explained that because he paid by direct debit the Council should, within a couple of days, have returned the credit to his bank. The Council explained an officer made a mistake which meant the BACS refund process was not triggered and Mr X was wrongly asked to complete a refund form. The Council explained that its auditors had asked for information to be requested in the format stated on the form but it was in the process of reviewing the wording on some letters. It explained the BACS error had been discussed with the officer.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
9. The Council has already provided a fair and proportionate response. It has apologised for the time taken to close the account and for the failure to make a refund via BACS. It has explained the reason for the delay and that it is taking steps to reduce delays. It has also explained that the refund form should not have been sent to Mr X but, given that it was, it has explained the reason for the wording on the form. It also explained that the BACS refund error has been discussed with the officer.
10. Mr X remains dissatisfied but, once the Council’s response is taken into account, there is not enough injustice to require an investigation. Mr X has received the refund, he has not incurred a financial loss and should not be asked to complete the form again should he have another credit on the account. Mr X says he is concerned about the impact these issues may have on other people. However, the Council is taking steps to reduce delays and there is nothing about the wording on the form which suggests it would have significant impact on other people or that an investigation is needed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and there is not enough injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman