Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a council tax disability reduction. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council removed a council tax disability reduction without considering the issues properly or following the correct process. Mr X has suggested the Council is motivated by racism.

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 the Council has provided a fair remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 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

5. I read the complaint and the correspondence between Mr X and the Council. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax disability reduction

6. The Council reduces the council tax by one band if the person qualifies for the disability reduction. To qualify the property must have an extra kitchen or bathroom to meet the needs of a disabled person; or another room which is mainly used by a disabled person to meet their needs; or have enough space for the disabled person to use a wheelchair indoors.

What happened

7. In September 2019 the Council awarded the disability reduction from November 2018. Mr X’s wife has various health issues. In July 2020 Mr X asked the Council to backdate the discount. The Council reviewed the application and realised it had awarded the discount in error. It decided that the property, and Mrs X’s use of the property, do not meet the qualifying criteria. It decided to remove the discount from the date it realised the mistake in 2020.
8. The Council explained, in detail, why it had removed the discount. It apologised because it had made the error and said it had taken steps to ensure it did not make the same mistake again. It said Mr X would not have to repay the council tax that had been reduced, in error, during the period the discount was in place. The Council told Mr X he had two months to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the Council’s decision. It invited Mr X to provide specific examples of racism.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to remove the discount. He does not accept the Council made an error but thinks it was motivated by racism. I have not seen any examples of racism provided by Mr X. Mr X says he would not have considered racism to have been a factor if the Council had followed the correct process.
10. Mr X says the Council removed the discount after a brief phone call which was less robust than the initial application process. Mr X says the Council has not followed the correct process. He says the Council has demonstrated incompetency and complacency and apologising is not enough. Mr X has no confidence in the Valuation Tribunal and the Council is just passing the buck.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
12. The Council has provided a fair remedy. It has explained it made an error and explained why it does not, on further consideration, think that Mr & Mrs X qualify for the discount. It has apologised and explained the discount rules and why Mrs X does not qualify. It has taken steps to prevent the error happening again and told Mr X they do not have to repay the £323 they benefited from during the period of the discount. The Council carried out an internal review, explained Mr X’s appeal rights, and invited Mr X to provide examples of racism. This is a fair response and there is nothing more I would have expected the Council to do. Mr X wants more information about what the Council said to staff about the error. I appreciate Mr X would like more information but that does not justify us starting an investigation.
13. I also will not start an investigation because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal if he disagreed with the decision that they do not qualify for the discount. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to considers council tax disputes. The tribunal would have considered if the Council was correct to have removed the discount. If the tribunal had decided the Council had acted correctly then that would have helped set Mr X’s mind at rest regarding racism. The tribunal is free to use, independent of the Council, and made up of council tax experts. Mr X has expressed a reluctance to use the tribunal due to a previous experience but it remains that the tribunal is the appropriate body to decide if Mr X is entitled to the discount, as he continues to assert.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a fair remedy and because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman