Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed issuing a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, wants compensation because the Council delayed issuing a council tax refund.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X moved out of a property. In July one of his employees sent an email to the Council saying Mr X had moved out and provided the names of the new tenants. The email asked for a closing bill and council tax refund. The email did not provide Mr X’s new address.
5. A few days later the Council sent a closing bill to that address. It did not have an alternative address for Mr X so sent the bill to the last known address. The bill was not returned to the Council.
6. Mr X’s employee sent an email and letter in November to complain the Council had not responded to the July email. The Council did not receive the letter but failed to respond to the email.
7. Mr X complained to us in January and we asked the Council to respond. The Council issued the refund of £1350 in February. It explained it had sent the closing bill in July and apologised for not responding to the email in November. The Council declined Mr X’s request for compensation.
8. Mr X wants compensation and says he only got the refund due to all his time and trouble.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately in July by sending the closing bill and information about the refund. The Council did not know Mr X had not received the bill because the letter was not returned. Mr X would have received the bill if the Council had been provided with his new address. There was fault in November when the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s email but this does not require an investigation.
10. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Although Mr X could have received the refund in November, a three month delay does not warrant an investigation or compensation. Mr X has not suffered a financial loss and, while he has referred to the efforts he put into obtaining the refund, most of the correspondence came from one his employees. And everyone can expect to spend some time trying to resolve difficulties.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman