Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax and council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, does not think her council tax and/or council tax support (CTS) are correct following the award of the council tax carers discount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, an email of 27 July, and council tax bills. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021 the Council awarded Mrs X the council tax carers discount from 2013. This meant Mrs X was disregarded for council tax and her council tax was reduced by 25% from 2013 because there was only one adult living in the property. The Council issued a refund for £3056 for the carers discount. The council tax for 2021/22 was nil after all the adjustments had been made. The bill included CTS which had been awarded until the end of March 2022.
7. In June Mrs X told the Council her capital had increased to above £6000 which meant she was no longer entitled to CTS. The Council cancelled the CTS claim which meant she owed council tax of £756. The Council said it would disregard the capital if it had increased purely because of the refund. It invited her to provide evidence of why the capital increased. It also said she could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagreed with the CTS decision. The Council issued a council tax bill for £756 because the CTS had ended. Ms X paid the bill.
8. Mrs X does not think the council tax is correct. She says the carers discount is not means tested but the Council has acted as though it is. Mrs X does not think she has benefited from the refund.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council awarded a refund for the carers discount. The only reason Mrs X had to pay £756 is because she reported she had capital and the Council ended her CTS. If the capital went above £6000 due to the refund then Mrs X can provide evidence to the Council and the Council will reconsider the claim. However, I am aware Mrs X has said she does not want to do this and does not want reclaim CTS. Mrs X is correct to say the discount is not means-tested but CTS is means-tested; the end of the CTS has nothing to do with the refund – unless Mrs X wants to show that the refund took the capital above £6000.
10. I also will not start an investigation because Mrs X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if she did not think the decisions made by the Council about the CTS were correct. For example, she could have appealed if she did not think she should have to pay £756 due to the CTS ending. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about CTS.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mrs X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman