London Borough of Newham (21 018 589)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 10 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s council tax account. The Council has already provided enough remedy. There is not enough unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly did not give him a council tax discount for a period when a property he owns was empty. He also complains the Council got his name wrong on a letter it sent to the property and repeated that error when replying to his complaint.
  2. Mr X says this caused him stress, he went to time and trouble pursuing the matters, and the wrongly named letter caused confusion and concern to his tenants and letting agent. He wants a payment from the Council to recognise this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
  2. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. When Mr X telephoned the Council about not receiving the council tax discount, the Council corrected the position and gave him the discount. I recognise the telephone call was longer and more detailed than Mr X considered necessary to correct the position. Nevertheless, this was corrected after a single telephone call. There are no grounds for us to do more on this point.
  2. The Council getting Mr X’s name wrong caused Mr X to have to spend time dealing with his tenants, letting agent and the Council about the matter. When the Council got his name wrong a second time, Mr X had some added frustration and had to contact the Council again. However, I consider the Council’s correcting its records and apologising (including for the repeated error) was enough remedy here. I am not persuaded there was enough injustice to Mr X to warrant the Ombudsman either investigating the complaint or asking the Council to do more. I am not persuaded a financial remedy is needed here.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough unremedied injustice to warrant investigation.

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