Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a spelling mistake on a council tax bill. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council spelt her name incorrectly on a council tax bill and took nine months to correct the error. She says the Council repeated the mistake after it was corrected. Ms X says the error stopped her from opening a bank account and getting work.

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 and council tax letters. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X, and her husband, made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X and her husband (Mr Y) registered a change of address for council tax. Mr Y sent an email to the Council’s contact centre which included the new address and the correct spelling of his wife’s name. The Council created a memo which it sent to council tax to register the new address. Unfortunately this memo incorrectly recorded Ms X’s name and led to the Council creating the council tax account with the wrong spelling. From February until June the Council issued council tax letters with the wrong spelling for Ms X’s name. The contact centre did not forward Mr Y’s email to the council tax team but sent the memo.
5. Mr Y sent an email in April querying the name but neither he nor Ms X provided the correct spelling. The Council asked for the correct name in June but, despite Mr Y sending several emails, he did not provide the correct spelling.
6. Ms X and Mr Y applied for council tax reduction (CTR) in July. This included the correct spelling of Ms X’s name. The Council changed the spelling for the council tax account from 9 July using the CTR information. In subsequent letters the Council apologised for the error. The Council says all council tax letters issued from 9 July have correctly recorded Ms X’s name.
7. The Council says an energy rebate voucher issued in September may have had the incorrect spelling because it was based on the records held in June. The Council says Ms X cashed the voucher.
8. Ms X says it took the Council nine months to correct the error. She says she was unable to open a bank account because she did not have an accurate council tax bill and every bank insisted on seeing a bill. Ms X says she could not get a job because she did not have a bank account. She also says the Council did not send a corrected bill until August despite correcting her name in July.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. There was an initial error because it wrongly recorded Ms X’s name when setting up the account but the Council corrected this error as soon as it received the correct details. It seems likely the Council would have corrected the details before July if Ms X had clarified the spelling earlier; for example she could have provided a correction in February as soon as she received the first bill. I appreciate Mr Y provided the correct spelling before the account was created but that email was not passed to the council tax so that team did not know there was a problem until April and had no information to check.
10. After July there is no evidence of further inaccurate bills and it is unlikely the mistake would be repeated after July because the correct details are recorded on the system. The energy voucher may have included the error but this is because it was based on the information held before the error was corrected. There was an initial error but this does not amount to fault requiring an investigation.
11. Ms X also complains the Council did not send a new bill until August despite correcting the spelling in July. But, correcting a name on the database would not have trigged a new bill. The Council issued a new council tax letter in August to reflect a benefit award.
12. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate Ms X was upset by the error but this does not represent a level of injustice requiring an investigation. She says the error stopped her opening a bank account but, while I acknowledge she says every bank wanted a council tax bill, banks accept a range of documents to prove identity and address. In addition, there are banks that do not require proof address or Ms X could have asked for wages to be paid into Mr Y’s account (I have seen emails in which Mr Y refers to an account). And, as I have said, the problem could have been resolved sooner if Ms Y had provided the correct details.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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