Pendle Borough Council (22 011 880)
Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 23 Jan 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council billed the complainant for council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council failed to bill her correctly for council tax. She also complains about the complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and letters about the council tax. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
- The law says people must pay the council tax as billed. If they do not pay in accordance with the instructions on the bill, councils can issue reminders and take recovery action.
- Mrs X cancelled her direct debit because she says the Council issued an inaccurate council tax bill in March 2022. The Council issued a new bill in May which asked Mrs X to pay £239 on 1 June and £243 on the first of the month thereafter. Mrs X set up a standing order to pay £221 on the 25th of the month.
- The Council issued two reminders because, while Mrs X was making regular payments via the standing order, she was not paying on time or the correct amount as stated on the bill.
- Mrs X complained about the reminders as she had been paying every month. She complained about the tone of a letter and that she had not been told all payments must be made by the first unless paying by direct debit. Mrs X also said she had been given inconsistent information about what she should pay. In response the Council explained that the May bill had stated what she needed to pay and when. It said she had not been paying as billed which is why the reminders were issued. It apologised for an inaccurate figure for the arrears in a letter and said it would review whether it needs to provide clearer information about when payment is due for each payment method.
- I acknowledge Mrs X thinks the information provided was inadequate and it is clear she was making regular payments. But, it is also the case that the May bill stated the amount Mrs X needed to pay and when. Mrs X did not pay as billed so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council issuing reminders. Further, the letter Mrs X describes as offensive gave a factual account of what she was required to pay, what she had paid, and why she was in arrears. I acknowledge Mrs X found the letter offensive but there is nothing in the letter that requires an investigation.
- Mrs X says the complaint handling was poor and says the Council has given inconsistent and unclear information. It may be there was a lack of clarity in setting the new direct debit but there is nothing to suggest a degree of fault requiring an investigation.
- I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council issued two reminders but it did not start legal action and Mrs X has not incurred any costs. And, while it may have taken some time to set up a new direct debit, there is nothing to suggest Mrs X has been charged more than the council tax that was due.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman