Summary: There was fault in the way the Council handled a council tax account when Mr X and his partner separated. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and refund a credit on his council tax wrongly allocated to his partner. It has also made service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his council tax bill when he separated from his partner.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Mr X and the Council including the council tax bills.
5. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Chronology

7. Mr X and his partner lived together until 1 October 2019 when his partner moved out.
8. Mr X’s ex-partner notified the Council of her new address for council tax purposes three weeks later. Mr X did not notify the Council of the change at that time, although he was then entitled to the single person discount.
9. Mr X’s council tax account was in credit. The Council says it wrote to both Mr X and his ex-partner at Mr X’s address asking them how they wished to claim back the credit.
10. On 21 November either an officer telephoned Mr X’s ex-partner, or she telephoned the Council. The credit was discussed, and Mr X’s ex-partner said the credit (£842.46) should be shared equally between her and Mr X. New bills were issued to both Mr X and his ex-partner setting out the credit that was applied to each.
11. Mr X did not apparently notice a new council tax account had been set up in his sole name and he continued to make his normal payments to the joint account. The Council says it appears Mr X only became aware of the situation when he telephoned the Council in February 2020 having received a reminder on his ‘new’ single account.
12. Mr X complains that although his (original joint) account was in credit, he was threatened with legal action as his payments had gone ‘missing’. Mr X says he found the demands for payment very stressful and time consuming to resolve.
13. Mr X also complained that the Council had taken 50% of the credit and paid it to his ex-partner although she had never contributed towards his council tax bill. He said the Council should not have done this without his consent. Mr X also said that as he had made an additional payment before the credit was allocated the Council wrongly allocated his ex-partner additional funds paid after she had moved out of his property.
14. The Council acknowledged that it would normally hold any refunds until all parties had completed and returned a refund form and apologised that on this occasion it had transferred monies prior to contact with him. It would take steps to ensure officers contacted both parties in future.
15. However, the Council intended to still credit Mr X’s ex-partner with 50% of the credit on the day she moved out (before Mr X made the next payment). Mr X did not agree and said this approach would mean taking money back from his ex-partner to pay him, which was unfair. He considered the Council should rectify the mistake at its own expense. He asked for his complaint to be escalated.
16. The stage two complaint officer found it was reasonable for the Council to allocate the credit between two account holders. The Council did not accept fault in opening a new account for Mr X. It had sent him a revised bill and Mr X had not noticed the new account number and had continued to make payments against the old account. Council tax was an automated process, but the Council would consider whether it could improve the process to alert customers to changes in their account number. The Council said any additional credit to Mr X would require a corresponding adjustment to his ex-partner’s council tax account.
17. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• It should have written to Mr X’s ex-partner at her new address not at Mr X’s address.
• After further discussions among council tax officers it would adopt an approach of withholding the allocation of credit until the views of both parties are received to prevent a recurrence of this situation.
• Officers would be reminded of the importance of ensuring all parties on an account are consulted before any funds are reallocated.
• The Council should have ensured Mr X’s views were received before allocating the credit and to remedy this the Council will itself pay Mr X £421.23 being the share of credit wrongly allocated to his ex-partner (and not deduct this from the ex-partners account).

Analysis

19. The Council has now accepted fault in allocating the credit without Mr X’s consent. It has agreed to reimburse Mr X in full and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
20. It was not fault for the Council to amend Mr X’s bill when his ex-partner advised she had moved out. Mr X did not update the Council about his change of circumstances at that time. The Council’s actions meant it allocated a single person discount to Mr X which he had not applied for. This benefitted him. Mr X did not query why he had received an amended bill at the time and did not notice the account number had changed. Sending reminders is an automated process. No legal action was taken as the reminders alerted Mr X to the issue of the new account. I do not consider a payment for distress is merited for this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
21. There is inevitably time and trouble bringing a complaint, but this generally only requires a remedy where there has been fault in the complaint process which has meant a complainant has incurred time and trouble above what is considered usual. I am not persuaded that is the case here.

Agreed action

22. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X £421.23.
23. I am satisfied the Council has learnt lessons from this complaint and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the same fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault in the way the Council handled a council tax account when Mr X and his partner separated. This was fault. The agreed actions set out above are a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman