Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in registering the complainant for council tax. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council delayed registering him for council tax. He also says an officer verbally abused him and the Council did not do a stage two investigation. Mr X says the £100 compensation is not enough.

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:

• the Council has provided a fair remedy, 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 and a recording of a phone call. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Valuation Office, which is not part of the Council, has to place a new-build property in a council tax band before the Council can issue a council tax bill.
5. Mr X bought a new-build property in January 2022. The developer did not notify the Council of the sale until April. Mr X registered for bins in early February. The Council should have logged a new property form with the council tax team. This did not happen which meant the council tax team was unaware of the property until early April. It then asked the Valuation Office for a banding which it received in mid-May. The Council issued a council tax bill, from January, on 1 June. Prior to issuing the bill, in May it set up a provisional account so Mr X could make payments. Mr X made two payments in May which covered most of the amount due for 2021/22 and he made an arrangement to pay the remainder during 2022/23.
6. In the interim Mr X had called and emailed the Council trying to get a bill and stressing he wanted to pay. Mr X complained to the Council about the delay and about a phone call with an officer.
7. The Council apologised for the delay in setting up the account and said the council tax team should have been notified when he made contact in February. The Council said it had reviewed the process to ensure new property forms are sent to council tax. It apologised for what happened during the call and said the officer had been spoken to and training provided. The Council recognised the frustrations experienced by Mr X due to the delay and said the call was not handled appropriately and fell short of the required standards. The Council awarded compensation of £100. The Council did not do a stage two investigation because it upheld the complaint at stage one.
8. The Council delayed setting up Mr X’s council tax account. And, his sense of frustration was enhanced by not getting any answers or being able to make payments. However, I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. It explained what went wrong, apologised, will take steps to improve its practice, and awarded £100. Mr X says £100 is not enough but he has not suffered a financial loss and he has not been asked to pay any more council tax than the amount due from when he moved in. In addition, the Council has explained why it was unnecessary to consider the complaint further. Once the remedy is taken into account there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman