Summary: The complaint concerns the Council’s actions following information from a credit reference agency relating to Mrs X’s property. Based on the information provided the Council wrote to Mrs X asking her to confirm she was still entitled to single person discount on her council tax liability. Her representative was concerned there may be many others who have been similarly affected and it may mean they have lost their entitlement to the single person discount. The investigation is discontinued because there are not sufficient grounds to investigate further.

The complaint

1. I call the complainant Mrs X and her representative Mr B. The complaint is about the Council’s actions following information from a credit reference agency relating to Mrs X’s property. Based on the information provided the Council wrote to Mrs X asking her to confirm she was still entitled to single person discount on her council tax liability. Mr B is concerned there may be many others who have been similarly affected and it may mean they have lost their entitlement to the single person discount.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. Mr B and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X has lived on her own for over 20 years and receives 25% reduction on her council tax as a single occupier. In October 2020 the Council wrote to her. It said that as part of a regular review information showed there may be a person with financial link to her address. The letter said it was understood that this didn’t necessarily mean there was anyone else living at the address but it helped decide which accounts to review. It asked her to confirm within 14 days that she lived alone or the single person reduction would be removed. And the removal backdated to April 2020.
8. The information which had prompted the letter had come from a credit reference agency. Mr B contacted the agency who said there had been a ‘technical issue’ with that property and there was no financial link to Mrs X’s address.
9. The Council said that as part of its duty to prevent fraud it sends a list of accounts that receive council tax single person discount to the credit reference agency. The agency returns the list of accounts with a risk factor and whether there is any suggestion of someone else living at the property. The Council then writes to the accounts flagged in the way it did to Mrs C. This is part of regular reviews. There is more information about the process on the Council’s website. This was referenced in the letter sent.

Analysis

10. We investigate complaints where someone has suffered injustice as a result of fault by the Council. If a matter has already been resolved then we will not continue investigating it. Here I consider the matter has been satisfactorily resolved for Mrs X and there is nothing more we can achieve for her.
11. But Mr B believed that other people could be similarly affected. We do have powers to investigate matters that have to our attention during the course of an investigation where we believe that a member of the public may have suffered an injustice. In the review the Council wrote in similar terms to 9000 other people. Mr B argues there could have been other faults in the information from the credit reference agency which meant that some people had received the review letter when they should not. That could be the case but it is in itself so significant as to warrant further action. The letter only asks for confirmation the person is still entitled to the discount. No proof needs to be provided.
12. Mr B said it could be the case that someone vulnerable may not appreciate the significance of the letter so did not act and their single person discount would then be wrongly removed. I agree that would be possible. But that is not such a likely position as to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The investigation is discontinued.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman