Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax for a former student. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council incorrectly sent a summons and will not give a reason for its withdrawal or apologise. She wants the Council to admit fault and apologise.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Most full-time students are exempt from council tax. In 2018, after Ms X had ended her period of study, the Council told her that she, and other students she had lived with, owed council tax. Ms X paid £48 which was a quarter of the full amount due.
5. Money was still due on the account so in January 2019 the Council issued a summons to all the students, including Ms X. All the students were jointly liable for the council tax. The Council withdrew the summons on the day of the hearing.
6. In 2022 Ms X became aware of some information which led her to think the Council should not have asked for the money in 2018. She contacted the Council to complain and to ask for a refund. The Council issued the refund and explained that in 2020 it changed its interpretation of the rules regarding student exemptions. When it became aware of Ms X’s payment it issued a refund to reflect its new understanding from 2020. It explained that when it issued the summons it considered all the students were liable. The Council apologised for the upset caused by the summons.
7. Ms X is dissatisfied with the response, not least because she does not think the Council explained why it withdrew the summons.
8. The Council told me it issued the summons because council tax was still outstanding. It adjourned the case because it received representations that it should make the landlord liable. This was not correct but the Council did not re-issue the summons because, by then, the full amount had been paid. The Council cannot identify who made the additional payments.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. The Council had not changed its interpretation of the rules in 2018 so it correctly asked Ms X for payment. And, it issued a summons because there was council tax due on the account. It cancelled the summons because payment was made. When Ms X got in touch in 2022, after the Council had changed its approach, it issued a refund. There is nothing in this course of events that requires an investigation.
10. The Council could have given Ms X a better explanation of why it cancelled the summons. However, while I acknowledge the lack of clarity may have been frustrating it does not represent an injustice requiring an investigation and it has no bearing on what happened in 2018/19. In addition, Ms X received the refund she had asked for.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman