Sunderland City Council (21 010 040)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint regarding the removal of a discount and subsequent refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault regarding the discount and because the Council has provided a fair remedy in relation to the refund. The complainant’s request for information is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about the way the Council handled council tax on a property for which she is an executor. Mrs X wants the evidence the Council used, an apology and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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, or
  • the Council has provided a fair remedy.

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

  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and letters about the council tax. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mrs X is an executor for a property. She says she emptied the house in 2017 and sold it in 2019. The Council awarded a council tax empty property discount. In 2020 the Council received information from the new owners which said the property was furnished when they bought it. The Council removed the discount in December 2020 and sent Mrs X, in her role as executor, a council tax bill for £230. The Council explained she could appeal.
  2. Mrs X paid the £230, under protest, and appealed. In March the Council revised the decision and reinstated the discount. It accepted it had made an error in thinking the estate agent had advertised the property as furnished but said it was correct that the property was not completely empty when sold.
  3. The Council arranged to refund the £230 but made errors. It wrongly credited the amount to Mrs X’s personal council tax account and to the account of a third party. It issued the refund by cheque, in May, after Mrs X clarified how she wanted the refund paid.
  4. In response to the complaint the Council explained why it had removed the discount. It said it could not give Mrs X a copy of the information from the new owners due to data protection. It denied accusing Mrs X of tax evasion but agreed it could have sought clarification before removing the discount. The Council explained the confusion that arose over issuing the refund and apologised. The Council offered £250 compensation for Mrs X’s time and trouble.
  5. I will not investigate the complaint about the discount because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It removed the discount after it received new information and it gave Mrs X appeal rights which she successfully used. While the Council could have checked with Mrs X before making a decision this was mitigated by the fact that she was given appeal rights. Mrs X had to make a payment but this was made from the executors’ account and not her personal account.
  6. I will not investigate Mrs X’s wish to see the evidence because that is a matter for the Information Commissioner (ICO). Mrs X can make a Freedom of Information request to the Council and if she is unhappy with the response she can contact the ICO. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to do that because the ICO is the appropriate body to determine disputes about the disclosure of information.
  7. I also will not start an investigation because the Council has offered a fair remedy. It made mistakes in the processing of the refund but it apologised and offered £250 for Mrs X’s time and trouble. This is a proportionate response and we would not ask the Council to do anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, Mrs X could complain to the ICO, and because the Council has offered a fair remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings