Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged it paid money intended to be a council tax refund into a fraudster’s account rather than back to the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council paid money intended to be a council tax refund into a fraudster’s account rather than back to him.
2. Mr X says the Council’s security system is weak. Mr X wants the Council to now issue the council tax refund to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and background information on it provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent an initial decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X lived at his home with his partner until she moved out of the home. This led to a change of circumstances that meant Mr X was entitled to a refund of council tax already paid for that tax year.
7. The Council received a webchat request purportedly from Mr X. During this chat, the person asked the customer services officer to issue any council tax refund to Mr X’s partner. The customer services officer took the account details allegedly for Mr X’s partner. The customer services officer advised the person who called to write to the Council to confirm the account details. The officer said the Council would issue the refund within 10 working days once Mr X’s partner provided a copy of her bank statement by email.
8. Mr X’s partner did not send the confirmation to the Council. However, it still sent the refund to the account provided.
9. Mr X later complained to the Council that he had not received the refund. When the Council informed him that it had transferred the money to his partner’s account, Mr X disputed this. Mr X’s partner said she had not received the money. Mr X asked the Council for a transcript of the webchat that prompted the transfer. Mr X says he did not start the webchat and a fraudster received money from the Council because it did not have adequate security checks.
10. The Council says the customer service officer asked security questions to confirm the identity of Mr X such as his full name and address; the name of the other person liable for council tax at the time; and the identity of the person paying the tax.
11. The Council was satisfied that it transferred the money to the bank account in the name of Mr X’s partner. It said if Mr X’s partner did not receive the money then she can make enquiries into the matter with her bank and it would respond to any enquiry the bank makes.

Finding

12. I do not find fault by the Council here.
13. In terms of its security checks, I am satisfied the customer services officer asked the required security questions to establish the identity of Mr X. If the person on the telephone was not Mr X, then the person had knowledge of Mr X’s name, the nature of his relationship with his partner and the fact that the council tax was being paid by Mr X himself and not from a joint account.
14. Whether the security checks are stringent enough is not a question for this service to address. That is likely to be resolved through a complaint to the Information Commissioner.
15. It could be said the Council should not have made the bank transfer until it received confirmation of the bank details from Mr X’s partner as was stated in the transcript of the webchat. I note it did not receive that confirmation. But on balance, I am not inclined to find fault on this basis. The request for Mr X’s partner to send confirmation by email was made out of caution. Having already established Mr X’s identity on the webchat, it is clear the Council then decided to process the refund in the absence of the confirmation. It would have been better if the Council had waited for the confirmation but this is not sufficient to amount to fault.
16. The Council made a payment into an account in the name of Mr X’s partner. From Mr X’s account, the webchat was initiated by a fraudster who then gave the Council a bank account in the name of Mr X’s partner but one at a different bank from the one she uses. So, it appears the fraudster knew the name of Mr X’s former partner and then set up a bank account with her name with the specific intention of contacting the Council to get the refund paid into that account.
17. I find the Council’s advice to Mr X that his partner should contact the receiving bank to enquire into the payment is the appropriate avenue for resolving the matter. Mr X and his partner can then contact the Council for assistance with the enquiry depending on the response from the bank.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman