Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council recovered a large debt by direct debit without telling Mr X that a payment plan could be arranged. A Council officer also made inappropriate comments to Mr X and his wife in an interview. The Council’s apology, payment and offer to arrange a retrospective payment plan remedies the injustice from the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s collection of his Council Tax. Mr X says the Council took £1642 from a bank account by direct debit without telling him and has wrongly removed the single person’s discount for Council Tax.
2. Mr X also complains the Council officer made racist remarks during an interview, which caused offence to him and his wife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

Debt recovery

8. The Council accepts it was at fault, as it did not ask Mr X if he wanted to set up a payment plan before collecting arrears of £1642 by direct debit. As a result of my enquiries the Council contacted Mr X to apologise and offered to refund some of the £1642, which Mr X could then pay monthly. The Council has also said it would pay £250 to Mr X towards his time and trouble.
9. I consider the apology, offer of a payment plan and £250 payment remedies the injustice caused to Mr X.

Single person’s discount

10. Mr X explains that he and his wife also have a home in another country. He complains the Council did not apply the single person’s discount when his wife visited the home abroad for 2 periods of two months.
11. The Council has explained that regulation 11 (1)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 says that a discount can apply to Council Tax when there is only one resident.  As Mrs X has a main residence with her husband, which is her settled and usual abode, her main residence would not alter when she was absent from the property for an extended holiday.  The Council said that case law
    had established that the question of sole or main residence did not fall to be determined only by reference to periods of time spent away from the home.  In this case it was found that a resident had his main residence and usual abode with his family even though he spent 275 days away from home for his work. 
12. The Council said that Mr X had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the removal of the single person discount but as it felt that it had reached an agreement, it did not provide details. As this agreement was reached in a telephone call I cannot determine exactly what was said to say whether the Council should have informed Mr X formally that he had a right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
13. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions with regard to the single person’s discount. The Council properly considered Mr X’s request, taking account of all the information available, including case law. I cannot say for sure the Council should have provided Mr X with details of his right of appeal, as Mr X did not challenge the decision further in writing.

Officer’s conduct during an interview

14. Mr X complains about remarks made by an officer during an interview. The Council has accepted the remarks were inappropriate and were not appropriate to the investigation.
15. The Council has said that it does not consider the comment was racist. However, Mr X felt that they were and so it was an unacceptable comment to make.
16. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has apologised. As well as this I consider the Council should remind staff to use professional language when discussing potentially sensitive issues. Unprofessional terminology can create perceptions of bias and discrimination, which Mr X has clearly felt.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. The Council should apologise to Mr X for the inappropriate comments. (This part of the remedy is already complete.)
18. The Council should pay £250 to Mr X within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.
19. The Council should send evidence that it has reminded staff to use professional language when discussing potentially sensitive issues within two months of the date of the decision on this complaint.
20. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council. The actions described above, remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman