Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Ms X’s single person council tax discount. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and Ms X has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council incorrectly removed her single-person council tax discount because it believed her brother, Mr Z, lived at the address. Ms X told the Council Mr Z was deceased and had never lived at the address.
2. Ms X says the Council should have conducted enquiries regarding Mr Z’s circumstances and has caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council sent Ms X a letter removing her single occupancy council tax discount. It said it had conducted a check with a third-party credit agency and her brother, Mr Z, was registered as living at the address.
7. Ms X contacted the Council and said her brother was deceased and had never lived at the address.
8. The Council requested a copy of Mr Z’s death certificate to confirm his status.
   Ms X said she had no available copies of the death certificate and told the Council it should conduct its own enquiries.
9. Over the following months the Council again requested a copy of Mr Z’s death certificate. It did not conduct its own checks. It then issued a court summons to obtain a Liability Order to recover the money it believed was owed.
10. Before the court hearing the Council conducted enquiries regarding Mr Z. It confirmed Mr Z did not live at the address and the discount was reissued.
11. The Council is entitled to conduct regular reviews of those receiving discounts in its area. It acted in good faith on information provided by a third-party agency which indicated Mr Z was living at the property. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we will not investigate this complaint.
12. The Council requested a copy of the death certificate to confirm Ms X’s eligibility for the discount. Ms X could have obtained and provided a copy to the Council. However, after several months the Council conducted enquiries to confirm that
    Mr Z had passed away. Whilst the Council could have made its own enquiries regarding Mr Z’s circumstances it was also open to Ms X to provide it with a copy of his death certificate. Therefore, Ms X has not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the actions of the Council.
13. The Council should have informed Ms X of her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal when it removed her discount. However, the Council made enquiries and reinstated the discount. Therefore, Ms X has not been caused an injustice and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and Ms X has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman