Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his Council Tax account. There were some faults by the Council in how it managed Mr X’s Council Tax account which caused him significant distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council mismanaged his Council Tax account; this includes:

• lack of communication
• delays in providing Mr X with relevant information
• several changes made to Mr X’s council tax bill
• allegation of extortion.

2. Mr X says the Council’s failings has caused him significant distress, financial loss and the matter has affected his health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
10. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2016. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.
11. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. Council Tax is a local tax levied by local authorities. The amount a resident pays in council tax is based on the resident’s property band. The full council tax bill assumes there are two or more adults living in a home.
13. People may qualify for a 25% council tax reduction if they are living on their own (also known as Single Person Discount or SPD). If the applicant does not agree with the Council’s decision, whether their claim is rejected or they do not believe they have been given the correct amount of SPD, they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
14. A full-time student is exempt from council tax. If only students live in a property, they are exempt from council tax. The exemption covers holidays and ends at the end of the course or when the student leaves the course.
15. Council tax support or reduction is a benefit. People who have low or no income can claim to reduce their council tax payments.
16. Councils can reduce someone’s council tax if they are in financial hardship and there are exceptional circumstances. The person must apply for Discretionary Council Tax Relief.
17. Billing, collection and recovery of unpaid council tax is governed by The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 613.
18. Before a council can pursue someone for council tax it must send a demand. If a taxpayer misses a payment, the council must issue at least one reminder notice before issuing a summons for a liability order in the magistrates’ court. If the debtor does not pay, the council can act to recover the debt. There are several ways a council can recover the debt which includes referring the debt to enforcement agents.
19. Council tax appeals should first be made to the billing authority. If the appeal is not successful, there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal (Local Government Finance Act 1992).

Council’s Policy

20. “People living in occupied properties may be entitled to an exemption provided the property and its residents meets one of the following conditions: where all its residents are students…….”
21. “It is your responsibility to tell us you are a student within 21 days. Student discounts and exemptions are not given automatically and they can only be backdated for more than a short period if there was a good reason for a late application.”
22. Single person or single occupier discount is where “only one adult is living in a property, and that property is their main or sole residence, the council tax will be reduced by a quarter (25 per cent).”
23. “You can make appeals to the council to amend your council tax bill if you ….think your home should be exempt from any charge, your bill should include a discount….”
24. “You can make appeals to the Valuation Tribunal to amend your council tax bill if: …. you disagree with a decision we have made about an appeal you made to us; we have not made a decision on your appeal to us within two months….”

What happened

25. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
26. Mr X lived with his mother. Mr X’s mother died in November 2016.
27. In November 2016, the Council became aware of Mr X’s mother’s death.
28. In January 2018, the Council sent Mr X a bill for Council Tax (CT) arrears. The CT bill was from November 2016 when his mother died to 2017/18 financial year.
29. Mr X informed the Council he was the only occupant of the property and he could not pay the full CT bill. The Council applied a single person’s discount to Mr X’s CT account. The discount reduced his CT arrears by 25% (£1289.71). Mr X agreed he would pay the arrears in three instalments between January and March 2018.
30. In March 2018, the Council sent Mr X his 2018/19 CT bill. The Council reminded Mr X of his outstanding balance (£860) from the previous financial year.
31. The Council said Mr X made only one payment in February 2018. The Council summoned and issued liability orders against Mr X in April and May 2018.
32. Mr X informed the Council he had some health issues and he was out of work. The Council awarded Mr X Council Tax Support (CTS) for part of the 2018/19 financial year. Mr X agreed to repay his arrears on a monthly basis in addition to his ongoing CT instalments for the 2018/19 bill.
33. In September 2018, Mr X became a student. He provided the Council with evidence of his student status. The Council further applied student exemption to his CT account for the 2018/19 financial year.
34. In March 2019, the Council sent Mr X his 2019/20 CT bill. The Council received proof of Mr X’s student status for 2019/20, it applied student exemption to his bill. The Council reminded Mr X of his CT outstanding balance (£825.34) from the previous financial year.
35. Between end of March and May 2019, Mr X submitted a Benefit Decision Dispute form and raised concerns that his CT bill had increased and his CTS had been cancelled. Mr X confirmed he was still a student and his circumstances had not changed. He explained he would be unable to continue making the monthly payments for his 2016/17 arrears. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision and he requested CTS. The Council did not reply to Mr X’s concerns and his CTS request.
36. By mid May 2019, Mr X called the Council to discuss his circumstances and concerns about how the Council had dealt with his CT account. In particular, the Council’s failure to inform him of his CT liability in 2016, delay in issuing him with the initial CT bill and removal of his CTS. He alleged the Council’s failings caused him to be in debt.
37. The Council set out its telephone discussion with Mr X in a follow-on email to him. The Council confirmed Mr X had been liable for CT from November 2016 and the initial bill was sent to him in 2018. It explained to Mr X that a single person discount was applied to his CT account from November 2016 to September 2018. The Council confirmed a student exemption was applied to his account from September 2018 to June 2019 following receipt of proof of Mr X’s student status. The Council asked Mr X to send future proof of his student status if he carried on studying so it could consider further student exemption. The Council informed Mr X about his late mother’s CT credit (£342.11) which it agreed to transfer to Mr X’s CT account. The Council also removed the court costs (£240) and it instructed the bailiffs to stop further enforcement action against Mr X. The Council told Mr X it will send him a revised CT bill and an instalment plan in July 2019 with his first instalment expected in August 2019.
38. In March 2020, the Council sent Mr X his 2020/21 CT bill (£1096.54). The Council applied the 25% single person discount to his bill. The Council reminded Mr X of his CT outstanding balance (£535.07) from the previous financial year.
39. Mr X said the Council did not inform him of the £535.07 CT bill for 2019/20 financial year. Mr X said this was because the Council failed to send him the revised CT bill in July 2019 as promised.
40. In June 2020, the Council sent Mr X a reminder of his outstanding CT debt.
41. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained about the Council’s lack of communication and its delay in providing him with relevant information about his CT account. This included delays with informing him about his CT liability, his mother’s CT credit and the Council’s delay in applying the credit to his account. Mr X said if the Council had applied the credit to his CT account sooner, it could have reduced his initial CT bill and made it easier for him to pay his debt. Mr X alleged the Council told him in May 2019 that it would write off his arrears from 2016/2017, refund him with the bailiff fees of £80 and send him a revised CT bill in July 2019. Mr X said he did not know how the Council reached this decision. He questioned if it wrote off his 2016/17 CT arrears and made the bailiff’s fee refund. He said this was because the Council failed to send him the revised bill as promised and he did not receive the £80 refund.
42. Mr X also complained about the pressure the Council and the bailiffs put on him because he missed some payments. Mr X alleged the Council extorted CT payment from him because he made payments while he was a student. Mr X alleged in 2019, the Council changed his CT bill three times within one and a half weeks timeframe. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused him significant distress, affected his health and he was put to time and trouble chasing the Council for his outstanding bill over a two-year period. Mr X said he would not make further CT payments to the Council. He asked for his complaint to be escalated.
43. In July 2019, the Council issued its stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council restated what it told Mr X and the actions the Council took following the telephone call between both parties in May 2019 (see paragraph 37). To address Mr X’s misunderstanding of his CT bill and his allegation of extortion by the Council, it provided Mr X with the breakdown of his CT account. This included the payments Mr X had made, the transfer of his mother’s CT credit to his account and his outstanding CT balance from November 2016 to March 2021. This was a total of £1631.67. The Council confirmed it sent Mr X a reminder of his arrears in June 2020. As regards the bailiff fee, the Council confirmed Mr X made a £75 payment to the bailiff. The Council explained the fee was for the first liability order it issued to Mr X. The Council said the £75 would be credited into Mr X’s CT account. This would bring Mr X’s historic CT arrears to £460.07 (£535.07 less £75). It advised Mr X to contact the Council as a matter of urgency if he was having difficulties making payments and to set up a payment plan. The Council advised Mr X of his review right via its stage 2 complaint process if he remained dissatisfied.
44. Mr X said the Council failed to answer all his questions. Mr X said he paid his CT bills with his Student Finance from September 2018 to February 2019 when the Council should have applied student exemption to his account. He confirmed he was still a student and that he would provide the Council with proof of his student status for the year 2020. Mr X questioned why his CT arrears had not been written off as promised by the Council in May 2019. He said this matter had affected his health and he asked for compensation for the Council’s failings.
45. In September 2020, the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council maintained its initial findings from its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the delays in informing Mr X of his CT liability and accepted it could have acted sooner than it did when it sent Mr X his initial CT bill in January 2018. The Council acknowledged this could have given Mr X the opportunity to clear his CT arrears in smaller instalment payments over a longer period. It said Mr X could have had the opportunity to apply for CTS sooner than he did. The Council said the delay in issuing Mr X his CT bill sooner was because it did not receive the relevant information from the executor of his mother’s estate in a timely manner. It explained that due to Data Protection, the Council was unable to share third party information with Mr X.
46. The Council also accepted there was some delay by the Council in addressing Mr X’s CT account and CTS concerns he raised with it between March and May 2019. It said it would remind its staff of the timescales for responding to correspondence.
47. As regards the telephone discussion between Mr X and the Council in May 2019, the Council disagreed it decided to write off all of Mr X’s CT arrears from 2016/2017 financial year till 2019. The Council said the follow-on email it sent to Mr X after the call did not reflect that was the case. It confirmed that after Mr X explained his circumstances, the Council notified Mr X and applied his mother’s CT credit to his account to reduce his arrears. The Council agreed with Mr X the credit could have been applied to his account sooner to help reduce his CT debt and could have made it easier for him to make repayments. It explained the delay was because Mr X was not named as the executor of his mother’s estate.
48. However, the Council accepted it failed to explain to Mr X he had the right to apply again for CTS if he was no longer a student and was on low income. The Council said it would inform its staff it is good customer service to notify residents of their rights to apply for CTS where there are financial hardship concerns.
49. Due to the Council’s identified failings, it apologised to Mr X, and decided to write off Mr X’s CT arrears of £460.07 for the period prior to 2020/21 financial year. It confirmed Mr X was still liable to pay a total of £1096.54 CT bill for 2020/21 financial year. The Council agreed to put the recovery action on hold and advised Mr X to contact it by mid October 2020 to agree a repayment plan for the outstanding amount. The Council advised Mr X to submit proof of his student status from April 2020 (if applicable). This was to help the Council consider an award for student exemption. It said if Mr X was no longer a student but on low income, he could apply for CTS and request it to be backdated. The Council told Mr X to contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
50. In September and October 2020, the Council asked Mr X to provide evidence of his student status with start and end dates for 2019 and 2020. The Council said once it received the evidence, it would apply student exemption to Mr X’s CT account. Mr X informed the Council, he could not get the evidence of his student status due to COVID-19 restrictions and an ongoing issue he had with his university. Mr X maintained the Council still had not fully answered his questions as regards bailiff’s fees.
51. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint. Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
52. In January 2021, the Council informed the Ombudsman that Mr X still owed an outstanding CT balance of £1096.54 for 2020/21 financial year. The Council confirmed it had no record of any student evidence or CTS application for Mr X. It said the recovery was at the ‘Reminder Stage’ and that the Council had suspended recovery action until February 2021.
53. In March 2021, the Council sent Mr X his 2021/22 CT bill (£1161.28). The Council applied the 25% single person discount to his bill.
54. The Council has confirmed Mr X’s bill for 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years remain outstanding. It has agreed to put the recovery action on hold until October 2021, pending our investigation of Mr X’s complaint.

Analysis

55. There were some failings in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s CT account.

Lack of communication and Delays in providing Mr X with relevant information

56. Evidence shows the Council was initially aware of Mr X’s mother’s death in November 2016. But the Council informed Mr X of his CT liability and sent him his initial CT bill in January 2018. This was a delay of over one year.
57. I note the Council said it did not receive full information about the occupancy of Mr X’s property from the executor of his mother’s estate in a timely manner. When the executor was not forthcoming with full information, the Council could have made its enquiries after it first became aware of Mr X’s mother’s death in November 2016. The Council could have informed Mr X of his CT liability sooner, in 2017 after it received full information that Mr X was the sole occupant of the property since his mother’s death. This was a significant delay by the Council and amounts to fault. The Council has a duty to collect CT as soon as possible but, in this case, it failed to notify Mr X of his CT liability in a timely manner which caused distress to him.
58. Evidence shows the Council failed to acknowledge and/or respond to Mr X’s concerns between March and May 2019. The Council also failed to respond to Mr X’s emails in October 2020. This was fault by the Council which caused Mr X significant distress and avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council.
59. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised to Mr X for its delays in dealing with his CT account, correspondence and concerns. The Council said it would remind relevant officers of the timescales for responding to correspondence. The Council also wrote off Mr X’s £460.07 historic CT arrears for the period prior to 2020/21 financial year.
60. According to our guidance on remedies, £200 would have been our recommendation for the injustice the Council’s delays caused to Mr X. Therefore, this is a sufficient and proportionate remedy for the distress and time and trouble caused to Mr X.
61. As regards the Council’s delay in notifying Mr X about his mother’s CT credit, the Council explained this was because Mr X was not named as the executor of his mother’s estate. However, the Council accepted it could have informed Mr X and applied his mother’s CT credit to his account sooner if it had not delayed issuing his initial CT bill. Evidence shows the Council decided to apply Mr X’s mother’s CT credit to his account following the telephone conversation it had with Mr X in May 2019 when he explained his circumstances in more detail to the Council. If the Council had applied the credit to Mr X’s account sooner, it would have reduced his arrears but it would not have cleared his CT bill. I find fault by the Council for the delay in crediting Mr X’s CT account. But there was no significant injustice caused to Mr X. This is because Mr X would always have been liable to pay CT bill irrespective of when the Council informed and applied his mother’s CT credit to his account.
62. The Council said it would send Mr X his revised CT bill and instalment plan in July 2019. It confirmed Mr X’s first instalment would be due in August 2019. I find no evidence to show the Council sent Mr X his revised bill after it made amendments to Mr X’s CT account in May 2019. This is fault but I do not find this caused any injustice to Mr X. This is because Mr X was aware he needed to pay some CT even if he didn’t know exactly how much. Also, Mr X could have made further enquiries with the Council.
63. The Council failed to explain to Mr X he had the right to apply again for CTS in May 2019, when Mr X informed the Council of the difficulty he was experiencing with his CT repayment. I have not seen evidence the Council informed Mr X of his appeal right to the Valuation Tribunal. This was fault which deprived Mr X of the opportunity to have applied for CTS or appealed to the Valuation Tribunal (if applicable).

Several changes made to Mr X’s CT bill within a short period

64. Mr X alleges the Council changed his CT bill three times within a one-and-a-half-week period in 2019. I have seen no evidence to show this was the case. The Council sent Mr X his CT bill in March 2019 and it sent his next bill in March 2020. These bills were for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years respectively.
65. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it sent Mr X two CT bills within a relatively short period in 2018 but it was not within a one-and-a-half-week period as alleged by Mr X. The Council sent Mr X his initial CT bill in January 2018 covering the period from November 2016 to March 2018. And it sent a second bill for the new 2018/19 financial year to Mr X in March 2018. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
66. After the draft decision was issued to Mr X, he clarified the dates the Council made changes to his CT bills. Mr X said the Council made four changes to his bills within a 28-day period in 2019 and not a one-and-a-half-week period. The changes were made between March to May 2019. In any case, I find there was no significant injustice caused to Mr X by these changes.

Allegation of extortion by the Council

67. Mr X alleged that during his telephone conversation with the Council in May 2019, it agreed to write off all his outstanding CT bill from 2016 to 2019.
68. There was no evidence of this in the notes made of the call between Mr X and the Council. The Council’s follow-on email to Mr X setting out what was discussed did not show the Council agreed to write off Mr X’s arrears. I cannot on the balance of probabilities, reach a finding on Mr X’s allegation the Council agreed to write off his CT arrears from 2016 to 2019.
69. Mr X said he paid his CT bills with his Student Finance from September 2018 to February 2019 when the Council should have applied student exemption to his account. Evidence shows the Council applied student exemption to Mr X’s 2018/19 and 2019/20 CT bills. This was after Mr X provided the Council with proof of his student status for those periods. However, the Council did not apply student exemption to Mr X’s 2020/21 CT bill. This was because Mr X was unable to show or provide evidence he was still a student for the 2020/21 academic year. This was not fault.
70. Mr X said he did not receive the bailiff fee refund as promised by the Council in May 2019.
71. In response to my draft decision, the Council has now provided proof to show the £75 bailiff fees was credited to Mr X’s CT account. This was credited in July 2020. Therefore, I find no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

72. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified the Council has agreed within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the delays, lack of communication and failure to properly deal with Mr X’s council tax account.
• by training or other means remind staff of the:

• importance of notifying taxpayers of their council tax liability and managing council tax accounts in a timely and efficient manner
• importance of informing taxpayers they can apply for Council Tax Support in cases of financial hardships
• timescales for responding to correspondence.

• review the Council Tax Support decision notices and/or letters to ensure claimants are informed of their rights of review and appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

73. Within two months of the final decision:

• consider if Mr X was entitled to Council Tax Support and/or student exemption from 7 June 2019 to 31 March 2020.
• if Mr X was eligible, pay him compensation equivalent to what he would have been awarded. This is to reflect Mr X was potentially caused hardship for the delay in determining if he was eligible for the council tax support and/or student exemption.
• if Mr X is found not to have been eligible, give him rights of review and appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

74. I find evidence of some fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman