Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued recovery action against him while his council tax appeal was ongoing. There were delays in the Council’s processes which caused Mr X avoidable distress. However, the Council had already apologised to Mr X, and this was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council billed him incorrectly for council tax, wrongly pursued recovery action against him while his appeal about this was ongoing and took too long to respond to his queries. He also says the Council should not have asked him to provide personal information about a relative who had moved out of his property, due to data protection laws. Because of this Mr X says he experienced anxiety, distress, and frustration. He wants the Council to fully apologise for its errors and provide compensation for the distress caused.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council acted on the information Mr X sent it and how it responded to his queries.
3. The final section of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating whether the Council gave Mr X the correct discounts or how it decided to start court action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
8. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
9. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether councils followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
10. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
11. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him;
• documentation from the Council;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s guidance for Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19, and Guidance on Remedies.
13. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax discounts and exemptions

14. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 sets out various discounts and exemptions that should apply for council tax. This includes:
• those under the age of 18, or aged 18 or over but with child benefit still payable for them, are disregarded for council tax purposes;
• students, as defined by The Act, are disregarded for council tax purposes for their sole or main residence until the point their course ends or they leave their course; and
• where only one resident within a dwelling is liable to pay council tax, a single-person discount of 25% should be applied.
15. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 say councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to find out whether any discounts or exemptions should apply to the taxpayer. This is often met by carrying out reviews. The taxpayer has a duty to tell the council of any changes that may affect their entitlement to any discount or exemption.
16. In some cases, taxpayers can appeal about their council tax to the Council and then the Valuation Tribunal Service. In such cases this falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as described at paragraph 6, unless we think there are good reasons why someone could or did not appeal. Decisions appealable to the Valuation Tribunal include:
• a council’s decision not to award a council tax discount or exemption;
• whether someone is classed as a student for the purposes of council tax; and
• what is classed as a student’s sole or main residence for the purposes of council tax.

Council tax billing and collection

17. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax, and the way councils can recover council tax debt.
18. The council tax bill for the year is due on 1 April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If any instalment is missed the council will send the liable person a reminder. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance, i.e., the full amount for the rest of the year, will be due.
19. The law sets out the steps and timescales councils must follow before taking recovery action as follows:
• Initial bill - The bill must be issued at least 14 days before the first payment instalment is due.
• First reminder - If an instalment is missed the council may issue a first reminder.
• Liability Order – If the taxpayer does not pay the missed instalment within seven days of the first reminder, the full balance for the year becomes due seven days after the date on the notice. The council may then apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. The taxpayer will be invited to a liability order hearing at least fourteen days after the service of the summons from the Magistrates Court. A liability order allows a council to use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax and take recovery action.
20. There is nothing in law to say a council cannot pursue recovery of unpaid council tax pending an appeal about an exemption or a discount. Matters that could go before the Valuation Tribunal Service cannot be used as a defence in court against the award of a liability order.

The Council’s policy

21. Taxpayers may appeal against their council tax bill if they think they should receive a discount, or the Council has made a mistake in their bill. The Council’s website says:
• it will provide an appeal outcome within two months of receiving an appeal, after which there is a further right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service; and
• where someone appeals their council tax bill or payments, they must continue to pay council tax while their appeal is being considered. If their appeal is successful, they will be entitled to a refund of any overpaid council tax.

The Ombudsman’s guidance on Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19

22. This guidance says when councils are working with new organisations to deliver services during COVID-19, or using existing partners in new ways, they should keep proper oversight and direction. It says where councils delegate responsibility to others, overall responsibility remains with the council.

What happened

23. In August 2021, the Council asked Mr X to tell it who lived at his property as it was reviewing his single-person discount for council tax. Mr X completed an online form confirming he lived with a 19-year-old relative who he believed should be disregarded for council tax purposes because child benefit was still payable for them. He also provided evidence of this child benefit dated September 2019.
24. Three months later the Council sent Mr X an amended council tax bill. This stated the reason for the bill was that his discount had been amended and the statement indicated the Council had removed his single-person discount from September 2021 onwards. The bill included a payment schedule for Mr X’s remaining council tax instalments for the rest of the year, with the next payment due three weeks after the date of the bill.
25. The day before Mr X’s next council tax instalment was due, he contacted the Council to appeal the bill. He asked it to reinstate his single-person discount and said he planned to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if unsuccessful. Eleven days later, the Council had not yet responded to Mr X’s appeal request, and it sent him a payment reminder for his unpaid instalment.
26. Four days after receiving the reminder notice, Mr X paid part of the missed instalment. He told us he did not pay the bill on time because he had financial difficulties. He said he then did not pay the full amount because he disputed the removal of the single-person discount, so did not want to pay the disputed part of the bill. Nine days later, the Council sent Mr X a final demand notice, explaining it would seek a liability order via the Magistrates Court if the bill went unpaid. A week later Mr X told the Council his relative moved out of his property in September 2021, after he completed the online form but before the Council issued his amended bill. He said he planned to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if it would not change its decision to remove his single-person discount.
27. A week later the Council responded to Mr X’s appeal. The Council:
• explained it had cancelled Mr X’s single-person discount from the end of August 2021 because child benefit would not be payable for Mr X’s relative from that point onwards;
• asked Mr X to confirm the date his relative moved out and provide proof of their new address; and
• confirmed the final demand notice still applied and asked Mr X to ring the Council to arrange payment of his bill.
28. Mr X responded four days later. He provided the postcode of his relative’s new address but said he did not want to disclose any more detail due to data protection laws. He also asked the Council to progress his appeal. Nine days later the Council issued a court summons for a liability order hearing in three weeks.
29. Two days after Mr X received the court summons, he told the Council he would pay his outstanding bill and expect a refund if his appeal was successful. Two days later the Council told Mr X it had withdrawn the court summons and reinstated his single-person discount from the date his relative moved out. This left a period of three weeks in September 2021 for which the discount did not apply. The Council also accepted Mr X’s explanation for why he did not want to share further details of his relative’s new address. It said it had satisfied itself the relative no longer lived with Mr X using information from the electoral register.
30. Two weeks later Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his council tax bill. During the complaints process the Council gave Mr X opportunity to provide further evidence to show the single-person discount should have applied for the remaining three-week disputed period. Mr X provided more evidence, but the Council did not change its decision. Once the Council issued its final complaint response Mr X came to the Ombudsman.

My findings

November 2021 amended council tax bill

31. The Council took three months to issue an amended bill after Mr X provided information so it could review his single-person discount. The Council accepted this was longer than it should have taken. Its records showed this delay was because:
• it had a backlog of council tax amendments to deal with as it had received many enquiries about this following the COVID-19 lockdown in early 2021; and
• it contracted out the processing of council tax amendments to a third party, which did not work through these at a steady pace. This meant 5000 forms were sent back to the Council at the same time, 2000 of which needed manual intervention.
32. The Council said it did not accept this three-month delay was maladministration, or that it caused Mr X an injustice, but apologised to Mr X for the delay. I accept the Council had a backlog of cases due to the impact of COVID-19. However, as described at paragraph 22, the Council retained responsibility for any work it contracted out to a third party. It should have ensured this did not affect the delivery of its services. I also think the Council should have kept Mr X updated during this delay and its failure to do so was fault. I accept this caused Mr X a degree of concern while waiting to hear back from the Council. However, the Council has apologised for the delay, and I consider this sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. I do not think the level of injustice justifies any further remedy because:
• Mr X said he began to experience anxiety about the lack of response from the Council about three weeks after completing the form. However, the Council were not chasing him for any money during the delay, and Mr X said he was able to “put it to the back of [his] mind”. Mr X could have chased the Council up at any point during the delay if he had significant concerns and he did not; and
• although it took the Council longer than it should have to decide about Mr X’s discount, its decision on this has not changed. The Council is still of the view that Mr X should not have received a single-person discount for the three-week period in question. Therefore, Mr X did not receive the discount for this period. He did not appeal this to the Valuation Tribunal. Therefore, ultimately the delay did not change Mr X’s position for his council tax liability.
33. Mr X said he did not understand the amended bill the Council sent him in November 2021 because it did not properly explain how or why his bill had changed. The bill was titled “Council Tax – Adjustment” and stated, “Reason for bill: Discount amended”. The statement for the year was split into two periods, April to August and September to March. The statement showed the charge for the April to August period had been adjusted, which was labelled “Less 25% discount – all occupants disregarded but one”. There was no adjustment for the period from September onwards. I recognise the Council took longer than it should have to issue the amended bill. However, Mr X had recently provided information at the Council’s request so it could review his single-person discount. I think it was reasonable to have expected Mr X to know this bill was because the Council had amended his discount following the review.
34. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted the review outcome may have been clearer to Mr X if it had written to him or discussed it with him separately to the amended bill. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council considered whether it should change its processes and include a tailored cover letter when issuing amended council tax bills. It decided this would not be practical due to the large volumes of council tax bill changes it processes every year. I am satisfied the Council has considered the matter and given reasons for its decision about this. As I have explained in the paragraph above, I think the amended bill was clear enough. Mr X had the option to query the bill if he did not understand it and was able to do so.

Bill collection and recovery action

35. Mr X said the Council should not have pursued recovery action for his unpaid council tax while his appeal about the single-person discount was ongoing. He appealed the adjusted bill in late November 2021, and according to the Council’s policy should have received a response by the end of January 2022. However, during that time Mr X did not pay his December bill instalment, which triggered the Council’s recovery process.
36. Mr X told the Ombudsman he did not pay the December instalment on time because of financial difficulties. Although I accept this may have been the case, Mr X did not raise this with the Council at that time or tell it he could not pay this instalment due to financial difficulties. Therefore, I would not have expected the Council to consider at that point whether it should pause its recovery process on this basis or offer an alternative payment plan. The first time Mr X told the Council he had financial difficulties was much later, after it issued the court summons and he had said he would pay the disputed bill.
37. After Mr X received a payment reminder for the missed instalment, he paid part of the bill but not the disputed amount. Mr X said he did not discuss this with the Council before he paid. He said his general understanding of how appeal processes usually work was that he would not have to pay the disputed amount. He also said that because of his financial difficulties he did not want to pay the disputed amount. The Council continued to pursue recovery of the unpaid bill after this because Mr X had not paid in full. I consider the Council was following its standard process by doing so and I have not found fault with this because:
• as described at paragraph 21, the Council’s policy is that people must continue to pay council tax while their appeal is being considered and if successful will be entitled to a refund of any overpayments. This is published on its website;
• the process the Council followed complied with the relevant statutory timescales as set out in paragraph 19;
• as described at paragraph 20, councils may pursue recovery of unpaid council tax pending an appeal about an exemption or discount. Mr X said when he rang the Council following its final demand notice he got the impression it would pause its recovery process pending his appeal. There is no evidence from the Council’s records of this phone call that Mr X was told this. As this is not the Council’s policy, I consider it unlikely the Council would have told him this;
• when the Council responded to Mr X’s appeal in early January 2022, I consider the email was clear that Mr X needed to pay the outstanding balance. Mr X responded to the Council but did not pay the rest of the bill, so the recovery process continued. The Council issued a court summons nine days later. It is unfortunate the Council did not process or respond to Mr X’s email before it issued the summons. However, given the volume of queries councils deal with about this, I consider it reasonable that recovery processes are largely automated. There may well be instances where incoming queries have not yet been dealt with before recovery progresses to the next stage. In this case, I do not consider a delay of nine days to process an incoming query to be unreasonable. Had Mr X paid the disputed amount as the Council asked him to, the recovery process would have stopped. He then could have sought a refund following any successful appeal, according to the Council’s policy. Even if the Council had considered Mr X’s email before it issued the court summons, I do not think this would have stopped the recovery process anyway. The Council has still not changed its position that Mr X was not eligible for single-person discount for the period in question.
38. As explained in the final section of this statement, we cannot consider the Council’s decision to seek a liability order from the courts, or any injustice experienced by Mr X because of this.

Council’s request for Mr X’s relative’s new address

39. Mr X said the Council should not have asked him to provide his relative’s new address once they moved out of his property, due to data protection laws. The Council asked Mr X for this information once. It then accepted his explanation of why he did not want to provide this and sought the information from the electoral register instead. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions. It reasonably requested the information from Mr X and did not pursue it further when he said he did not want to provide it. I also do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused Mr X avoidable distress. However, the Council has already apologised to Mr X and I consider this sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. Although Mr X said the Council billed him incorrectly for Council tax, I have not investigated whether the Council was correct to remove his single-person discount for the period in question. I have also not looked at whether the relative living with him was a student for council tax purposes. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. I consider it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to make an appeal in this case. He has provided no good reason why he could not appeal to the tribunal.
42. As described at paragraph 8, we cannot investigate the Council’s decision to start court action by seeking a liability order from the Magistrates Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman