Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears which the complainant disputes. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, does not accept she owes £135 in council tax for a property she sold in 2020. She was given a refund and is convinced she does not owe any money. Ms X says she was sent a summons with no prior warning. Ms X wants the Council to confirm she does not owe any council tax.

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))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes correspondence about the arrears. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In March 2020 Ms X told the Council she had sold a property and she cancelled the direct debit. The request for the council tax payment had already been made by the Council and was received. The Council then issued a refund because it had closed the account which was in credit. Ms X’s bank then recalled the direct debit payment of £135 which meant £135 was added back to the council tax account. The Council says it should have waited longer before issuing the refund.
7. The Council issued a bill for £135 in April and a reminder in May 2020; it sent the letters to Ms X’s contact address in Yorkshire. Ms X contacted the Council in June 2020, referred to the reminder, and asked the Council to confirm it had been sent in error.
8. Between June 2020 and late 2022 the Council provided many explanations as to why it believes Ms X owes £35. It issued several bills, reminders and some court summonses. It withdrew all the summonses and costs; this was partly because Ms X continued to dispute the arrears and partly because, at times, there had been delay by the Council. In September 2022 the Council confirmed Ms X owes £135 unless she provides evidence she has paid. The current position is that Ms X owes £135.
9. Ms X continues to deny she owes £135. She denies receiving some of the bills and reminders and says she was often unaware of the alleged arrears until receiving a court summons. She also complains about the Council’s handling of the account.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because Ms X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council has confirmed that its September letter is its final decision and this allows Ms X to appeal to the tribunal. I will ask the Council to send Ms X a letter to confirm she can appeal. Ms X can appeal on the grounds she does not agree she owes £135. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider council tax disputes. The tribunal is free to use and will decide if Ms X must pay £135.
11. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. There was some delay but, overall, the Council acted appropriately by providing many explanations as to why it believes Ms X owes £135. I appreciate Ms X received some court summonses but this was the correct step after Ms X had not paid £135 following receipt of the bill and reminder. And, on at least one occasion, Ms X was aware of the reminder because she challenged it. There were some delays but there is not enough fault to require an investigation and there is insufficient injustice because Ms X has not incurred a financial loss and all the summonses have been cancelled. And, the key issue is the dispute over the £135 and that is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman