Summary: Miss X complains the Council refused to help her claim council tax support and then took unfair and distressing recovery action against her. She says this had a severe impact on her mental and physical health. We found fault by the Council. It has agreed an improved remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council delayed awarding council tax support for more than 18 months leading to court action and charges. She also complains the Council did not refund council tax credits when she asked. Miss X says the Council’s stage one response was incompetent and superficial and did not respond to the issues she raised, and the Council refused to investigate further when she complained at stage two.
2. Miss X says that the Council’s actions were abuse which caused her significant distress, affecting her mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the complaint and the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Council Tax Support Scheme 2020

6. The Council scheme describes how it will consider council tax support claims. It states at Part D:

“Additional provisions in respect of people entitled to Universal Credit:

1. A person for whom the Council receives both an electronic notification of a new claim for, and subsequently a related first payment of, Universal Credit from the Department for Work and Pensions shall be deemed to have made a claim for a reduction under this scheme on the first day of entitlement to Universal Credit to which that notification of first payment refers.”

What happened

7. Miss X moved into a new property in June 2020. She claimed Universal Credit and confirmed that she wished to claim council tax support.
8. The Council received the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) confirmation that Miss X was entitled to UC and that she wished to claim council tax support in July 2020. However, the Council took no action regarding this information.
9. In August 2020 the Council sent Miss X a council tax bill, after applying a single person discount.
10. In September Miss X tried to access the Council’s online council tax claim calculator. The guidance regarding the calculator states:

“The quickest and easiest way to check and claim is to use our claim calculator. It will work out how much you can get and then you can go on to make your claim.”

11. The Council’s claim calculator guidance also states under the heading, “If you are making a new claim for Universal Credit:

“We have decided that in Manchester, we will treat your Universal Credit claim as a Council Tax Support claim as well, as long as you say you want to claim Council Tax Support when you make your claim for Universal Credit - you don't need to use this claim calculator”.

12. Miss X says when she used the calculator it kept showing the same result regardless of the figures she entered in the fields.
13. In September 2020 Miss X wrote to the Council and said its online system for calculating council tax bill was not working. She said she had entered different amounts, but the calculator gave the same result. As she was on UC she expected the system to recognise this.
14. The Council replied that if Miss X was receiving UC, she may be entitled to claim council tax support and she could apply to the benefits section.
15. Miss X called the Council in October. The Council noted she paid £50 and said she had applied for benefit. It noted UC was in payment, but it had no application for council tax support. The Council noted Miss X was not aware she had to claim council tax support, but said she would make a claim the next day.
16. In October 2020 Miss X wrote to the Council again and asked it for the address of the benefits department. She said that when she wrote previously, she had thought it was to the benefits department.
17. The Council replied apologising that its previous letter was misleading. It said that there was no address for council tax support as claims could be made online. It gave a link for this.
18. In February 2021 the Council sent Miss X a summons for council tax arrears for 2020/21, adding summons costs of £79.50.
19. In March 2021 Miss X called the Council and said she had been trying to claim council tax support. The Council noted that it advised her to try again with the help of others which she agreed to do. The Council said it would place a hold on the account. Miss X stated she and two other households she knew of, had tried to make a claim a few weeks before and had got stuck in a loop.
20. Three days after Miss X’s call the Council obtained a liability order in court. The Council notified Miss X regarding the liability order and advised it could take recovery action including using enforcement agents.
21. Miss X called the Council in April and said she was upset the Council was requesting payment when it said it would hold action. The officer advised that the hold had probably come off and that sometimes payment demands continued. The officer said he would transfer Miss X to benefits. It is not clear whether Miss X then spoke to a benefit officer.
22. In July 2021 the Council sent Miss X a final notice for the council tax for 2021/22. It said that the council tax for the year must be paid in full.
23. Miss X approached her landlord for assistance. Its money advice worker wrote to the Council in July and asked it to review its demand for payment in full. The advice worker explained her income and circumstances and asked the Council to review her claim for council tax support.
24. In September 2021 the Council replied that if Miss X was struggling to pay her council tax she should apply for council tax support. It noted Miss X had applied for council tax support in March 2021 but had not completed the claim. The Council said Miss X could claim online and it would hold action for a month.
25. Miss X’s money advice officer contacted the Council on her behalf later in September 2021. The Council advised Miss X to claim online again. The money advice worker agreed to assist Miss X.
26. The Council received Miss X’s claim for council tax support in September 2021. Miss X asked the Council to backdate her claim to June 2020 or April 2021.
27. The Council asked Miss X which date she was asking her claim to be backdated to. It also stated it was unable to backdate any claim more than six months from the date she made her claim. It asked why she had not made a claim between September 2020 and September 2021 despite it repeatedly advising her to.
28. Miss X replied stating that she had contacted the Council in September 2020 to say its online system was not working, and had written in October 2020. She believed the council tax office had misguided her. She said she had been off work with stress and the Covid 19 had severely impacted her.
29. In November 2021 the Council sent Miss X a summons for the 2021/22 council tax year, adding costs of £79.50.
30. Miss X’s money advice worker called the Council in December about the summons and asked the Council to hold off further action as it had still not assessed her claim for council tax support. He said he had discussed her council tax with an officer who agreed to hold action until the end of December. He later asked the Council to remove the summons and costs that it had charged Miss X.
31. However, in December 2021 the Council obtained a second liability order in court. Shortly after the Council obtained the liability order, it noted that it would remove the two summons costs from 2022/21 and 2021/22 because it “had docs but didn’t take appropriate steps.” The Council removed the costs in mid December.
32. On 10 January 2022 Miss X complained to the Council. She said she had requested help with calculating the council tax payable by phone. But the Council had not helped her. She wrote in September 2020 to tell the Council its online system was not working but the Council failed to address the issue. She said her landlord had also tried to assist her. She said the Council’s repeated failure had caused her severe stress and distress for more than a year. She asked the Council to address the issue of the system not working in September 2020, its failure to address this and the impact on her.
33. On 21 February the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint, apologising for its delay in replying. The Council upheld her complaint. It found Miss X had claimed UC in June 2020. In July 2020 it received confirmation from the DWP that she was entitled to UC. The Council said that the UC claim was a claim for council tax support and the Council should have treated it as a claim and assessed her entitlement. The Council said it had not identified this at the time and it apologised for this. It confirmed that it had now assessed her council tax support to start in June 2020. It said her council tax account was now in credit by £221. It advised her to contact its council tax team about the credit.
34. The Council said it could not find a record of Miss X calling before September 2020, but it did not dispute this. It also said its responses in September and November 2020 which just advised her to claim council tax support were not helpful. The Council said it should have passed her letter to the benefits department so that it could contact her. The Council apologised that it did not address the issues Miss X was raising until it received her complaint. It also apologised that the way it dealt with her claim had resulted in her suffering stress. The Council said it could not see any issues with its online claim at that time but it accepted Miss X had difficulty. It said it should have done more to help her making a claim for council tax support and its council tax section and benefits had not worked together to support her through the process. In addition, if the Council had dealt with her claim in July 2020 straight away this would have resolved the matter. The Council offered to pay Miss X £100 because its service was not to the expected standard. It also said it would send feedback to the staff concerned and its council tax and benefits managers had discussed the matter and agreed that contact between the two sections should improve.
35. Miss X complained at stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure in late March 2022. She said the Council’s response was superficial and had not attempted to address the impact on her of its lack of service regarding the calculation of council tax and its failure to consider this. She complained that Council officers did not carry out their duties despite her repeated requests, and in fact actively refused to help her. The Council had also taken court action against her and charged her court fees.
36. Miss X said the Council stated its service was not to a standard it would have liked, but it her view its actions were abusive of her rights and her health. She said she would not provide a list of the actions the Council could take because it was not her job to do so. She said the Council had not begun to investigate the stress and distress its actions had caused. She asked how the Council had calculated the compensatory payment of £100 and what the Council understood about the stress and distress it had caused her. Finally, she asked the Council to refund the £221 credit immediately.
37. On 23 March 2022 the Council acknowledged Miss X’s complaint. Before it started the stage two process it asked for further information. It asked
• Miss X the reasons why the officer had not understood the impact. The Council said it had apologised and also offered financial compensation.
• Which duties officers had failed to carry out and why she believed this was a refusal as opposed to a mistake.
• What outcome Miss X was seeking beyond the refund of £221.
38. Miss X did not receive the Council’s letter. It appears the Council attempted to send the letter using its complaint system, but the Council accepts it is unlikely it was sent as it did not have an email address for Miss X. She chased the Council for a response on 25 April 2022. It sent Miss X a copy of its letter on 29 April 2022.
39. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in May 2022 that the Council had not helped her when she contacted it about the claim calculator, which was not working. She said it ignored her two complaints 2020 and then made demands for payments, adding court costs for two years. She said it admitted it had overcharged but did not admit its poor treatment of her. And it had still not refunded the credit which was not reliant on the escalation to stage two.
40. Miss X said the Council had refused to accept her complaint because it was about issues more than 6 months old. She considered this was an abuse of its power. She felt severe anxiety, causing sleeplessness, lack of energy and physical symptoms. She said she felt threatened and traumatised by the Council’s actions. In her view the Council was acting more like a criminal gang than a body whose duty was to serve the people.
41. We passed Miss X’s complaint back to the Council for a response. The Council asked Miss X again why she was dissatisfied with its stage one response.
42. Miss X replied that it was incorrect for the Council to say she believed officers refused to help her, it was a fact that they refused. She said the Council’s duty was to respond to her letter in September regarding the claim calculator not working. She said the Council had failed to address the impact on her. She said the Council had still not refunded the credit of £221.
43. The Council replied to Miss X’s complaint on 23 May 2022. It said further investigation would not change the outcome of its stage one response. Miss X had not provided evidence of officers deliberately refusing to assist her. The Council said it had admitted fault in its stage one response and had offered compensation. It considered the remedy was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. The Council explained that it could refund the £221 credit but this would now increase her bill from £725 to £929.
44. Miss X did not receive the Council’s letter and chased a response in June 2022. The Council sent her a copy of the stage two response of 23 May 2023 by post on 14 June 2022. In its response to my enquiries the Council said its officer had noted the letter of 23 May 2022 was sent, but it does not have evidence to show how it was sent.
45. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman regarding its final response in April 2023. She said that the delay in her pursuing this was due to the effects of the Council’s treatment of her, as she felt ground down by it.

Analysis

46. I consider there was fault by the Council because it did not recognise for 18 months that Miss X had made a valid claim. The Council received the notification regarding her UC claim and the notice that she was entitled to UC in July 2020. It appears the Council overlooked this at the time. However, the Council missed several opportunities to check and identify that Miss X had already made a claim.
47. The Council accepts it should have reduced Miss X’s council tax shortly after receiving the UC information in July 2020. If it had done so this would likely have prevented the Council issuing two summonses, and obtaining a liability order.
48. When Miss X told the Council the claim calculator was not working, it told her several times to try again. The Council has not identified any apparent problems with the calculator at the time, and it is too late to look into this now. However, I consider the different sections should have communicated with each other and ensured that the benefits section contacted Miss X to assist her. While I do not see sufficient evidence of deliberate refusal or malicious intent by officers, it appears there was a lack of understanding by council tax officers about the claim requirements for people on UC as set out in paragraph 6. I consider the poor communication between sections here was fault. This extended the delay which caused Miss X severe anxiety and distress.
49. I consider there was fault by the Council in advising it would hold council tax recovery action, but twice moving to the liability order stage in 2021. This caused further distress for Miss X.
50. Miss X complains the Council refused to investigate her stage two complaint. The Council considered it had provided a suitable response at stage one and while it asked Miss X for further information regarding the impact on her, she did not provide it. I have not found fault here.
51. The Council does not have sufficient evidence that it sent Miss X its letters of 23 March and 23 May 2022. On the balance of probability I consider the Council did not send these letters. This led to additional time and trouble for Miss X because she had to chase a response.
52. The Council asked Miss X to contact it about the refund of £221 she requested in January 2022. It appears Miss X did not call the Council, and so without her bank details it could not make a payment. By the time she wrote to the Council again in March 2022 it had used the credit to reduce the new council tax bill. The Council explained this in May 2022. I do not find fault by the Council here.
53. Miss X says the Council refused to respond to her complaint because it was over 6 months old. But I have not seen evidence of this. In any case the Council did respond to both her stage one and two complaints.
54. The Council removed the summons and costs and it offered £100 as a remedy in view of its delay in applying council tax support. It has also apologised and provided feedback to officers. However, I have recommended an increased remedy in view of the length of time that Miss X had to wait for the Council to identify that she had already made a valid claim. I have taken account of the significant impact of the Council’s faults that Miss X described in her complaint to the Ombudsman and her vulnerability.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. The Council has agreed that within one month of my decision it will:
• Pay Miss X £250 to remedy the distress, anxiety and time and trouble it caused due to its delays and poor communication.
• Update its guidance to council tax and contact centre officers regarding council tax support claims from people on UC, highlighting the need for communication between departments. This should include advising officers to refer potential claims to its benefits section for it to respond to claimants.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have found fault by the Council. It has agreed a suitable remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman