Summary: Mr X complains about the Council recovering council tax arrears following its ending of his claim in 2018. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was submitted outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to a tribunal against the Council’s decisions on his benefits.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council passing his council tax debt to enforcement agents for recovery. He says that his housing benefit and council tax reduction claims were ended in 2018 and he has been disputing this since then. He wants his claims backdating to 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision before the final decision is issued.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X had his housing benefit and council tax reduction claims ended in 2018 which resulted in £4,000 of arrears on his account which had accumulated over several years. The Council told him that it terminated his claims following attempts to obtain financial information from him to assess the claims had failed.
8. Mr X’s Member of Parliament wrote to the Council on his behalf in 2018 and the Council explained why it had ended the claims. The Council said that it advised Mr X to appeal against its decisions if he disputed its action. In December 2018 Mr X told the Council he would complain to the Ombudsman. He did not do so until February 2020. This was following contact from enforcement agents recovering the debt on the Council’s behalf.
9. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint because he submitted it outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints. It was reasonable for him to appeal against the Council’s decisions on his claims to the relevant appeal tribunals as he was advised to do by the Council in 2018. The Council has obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court and it is normal practice to refer debts to enforcement agents to recover following the court orders.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was submitted outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to a tribunal against the Council’s decisions on his benefits.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman