Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about delay in the Council sending him a demand for council tax. This is because the remedy already offered by the Council is sufficient.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council missed his email advising he had moved into a new property. He had to chase the Council for a bill. The Council eventually sent him a bill asking him to pay over 2 months. He says this left him in financial difficulty.
2. Mr B also says his missing email is a data protection issue.
3. Mr B says whilst the Council accepted fault and apologised, this is not enough, and it should compensate him for the stress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6)).

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the Mr B and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr B says he informed the Council by email on 5 November 2020 he had moved into a new property. However, he says he had to chase the Council for the council tax bill. The Council eventually sent him a bill on 28 December 2020 asking him to pay over £300 in two instalments. This he says has caused him enormous stress and has left him in financial difficulty.
9. The Council accepted it was at fault for this and says it missed his email and only found out Mr B had moved into the property when the previous occupier made contact on 16 December 2020.
10. The Council has apologised for missing the email and the delay in issuing the bill.
11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint because if we were to investigate, the remedy for such a complaint would be an apology which the Council has already provided.
12. Mr B would have been liable for the bill anyway and the Council has invited Mr B to pay in four instalments. The Council has also said if this will cause financial hardship for Mr B then he can make contact so he can discuss an alternative plan.
13. Information about the amount of council tax payable in a particular band is available on the Council’s website, and Mr B could have checked the banding of his home on the Valuation Agency page of the Government website. He could therefore have estimated how much council tax he would need to pay and set the money aside until he received the council tax demand. We could not therefore say any stress, inconvenience or financial hardship Mr B suffered was because of the Council’s actions. The remedy offered by the Council is sufficient and we could not achieve more.
14. Mr B has also said the loss of his email amounts to a data protection incident. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already offered a sufficient remedy for what happened.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman