Summary: Mr X complains the council was wrong to send a council tax summons as he had paid for two properties. He also complains the council failed to take account of his disability as an autistic person. We have found fault by the council. It has agreed our recommended remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the council issued a council tax summons despite his having paid for both flats he owned. He had asked the council to merge the council tax liability for the properties. He also says he told the council he was autistic, but it failed to take account of his disability when communicating with him, causing distress and anxiety.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
4. I cannot investigate the council’s actions after the issue of the summons up to the issue of a liability order as that is part of the court proceedings.
5. However, I have investigated whether there was fault by the council before it issued the summons, and whether there was fault in its response to Mr X’s complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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).
8. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act 2010 as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the complaint and the documents he provided. I have made enquiries of the council and considered the comments and documents the council provided. Mr X and the council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

Legislation and guidance

The Equality Act 2010

10. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• marriage and civil partnership,
• pregnancy and maternity,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex, and
• sexual orientation.

Indirect discrimination

13. Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

14. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
15. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

Back to top

What I found

16. Mr X owned a house which consisted of two flats. He lives in the first floor flat and rented out the ground floor. The flats were listed separately for council tax.
17. In early November 2021, when the tenant of the ground floor flat moved out, Mr X contacted the council using its online contact form. He said he was now occupying the whole building. He asked the council to register the whole building for one council tax account, with a single person discount.
18. The council sent Mr X an acknowledgement the next day and said it had passed the information to its council tax team.
19. As the council did not update Mr X, he chased a response in early December 2021, again using the council’s online contact form. The council did not respond. .
20. Mr X chased a response again at the end of December. He also said the council had sent him demands for payment.
21. The council replied the same day and said it had stated in its email of 8 November 2021 it had passed his message to its back office team. In turn they would send the information to the Valuations Office Agency (VOA). The council explained the VOA was a separate organisation from the local authority and it would make a determination on his property being set up as one dwelling or otherwise. However, it said that Mr X remained liable for his current bill or bills during this process. It said Mr X had arrears of £176.28 for this property with another payment due on 1 January 2022. The council said he should bring the account up to date to prevent it from moving to a final notice. It appears the council was referring to the council tax for the ground floor flat.
22. Mr X paid £176.28 to the account reference for the first floor flat.
23. In mid January 2022 the council sent the information regarding the two flats being merged to one property to the VOA. It is not clear why the council delayed sending this information, which it had received almost 10 weeks earlier.
24. On 19 January 2022 Mr X paid £322 for the council tax for the ground floor flat. This payment was also made to the account for the first floor flat.
25. Mr X sent the council a message on 20 January 2022 saying “I have now paid the full amount for this year via my existing account. Please update your records and inform me when I will get my refund for paying for a property that does not exist”.
26. The council replied the next day. It said “If you have now cleared the balance of £528.28 for the Ground Floor Flat then thank you. Once the Valuation Office advise of the change to one property again we will bill accordingly. Until we receive this confirmation you would still receive separate bills for the properties.”
27. It does not appear the council checked either of the accounts for the ground and first floor flats. As a result of the payment Mr X’s account for the first floor flat went into credit. However, the account for the ground floor flat remained in arrears.
28. On 8 February 2022, council sent Mr X a summons for council tax arrears for the ground floor flat. The council added the summons cost of £60.
29. Mr X emailed the council on 9 February 2022. He said the council had sent him a summons for property that no longer existed, and he had already paid in full by 20 January 2022. He repeated details of the messages he had sent the council. He also said “It is very distressing to be sent a summons as the result of the behaviour of council workers.”
30. The council acknowledged Mr X’s email on 10 February, and said that the issue did not fall within its corporate complaints procedure. However, it said it had passed his email to the appropriate department for a response by 23 February.
31. Mr X contacted the VOA on 11 February and said he had merged the two flats. He also chased the council for a response to his email of 9 February 2022. He said that the council was causing great distress to a vulnerable autistic person.
32. Mr X chased the council for a response every day from 14 February 2022.
33. The council replied to Mr X on 17 February 2022. It said that the VOA was dealing with his request to merge the properties for council tax. It said the individual bills for each flat were due and payable under the respective account numbers. However, it could see that Mr X had paid both amounts under just one account number which had left it in credit. The council said that it had now transferred £528.28 to the ground floor flat account as per the dates the payments were received, and it had cancelled the summons.
34. On 21 February 2022 the council confirmed in a response from its complaints department that the summons hearing would not proceed because the transferred payment for the ground floor account had cleared the outstanding balance.
35. In March 2022 Mr X complained the council indirectly discriminated against autistic people under The Equality Act 2010. He said amongst other things that the council
• did not provide a live chat service
• did not provide an email address for the council tax department. Instead it expected him to complete a lengthy online form.
• sometimes failed to respond to these messages.
• replied via email, but it was not possible to reply to that email. Instead the person had to fill in the lengthy form again. Then the Council sent a reply from someone different with no idea what he had told it previously
• refused to answer emails even when it knew an autistic person was extremely upset by a court summons.
• complaint department took no action to resolve the problem.
36. Mr X said that his desired outcomes were that the council
• Dismissed the people who caused him so much misery
• Paid substantial compensation
• Made online communications more user friendly
• Ensured its listing officer reassessed his home as a single dwelling, and gave him his refund so he was not paying twice. Then he would not have to worry about attending a Valuation Tribunal as this would be a highly stressful event for an autistic person.
37. The council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and asked him to confirm whether he was referring to himself as someone who was autistic. If so, it asked whether he required any adjustments when communicating with him.
38. Mr X confirmed he was autistic and that he preferred communication by email. He explained that he was worried about the deadline for making an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the banding of his property.
39. The council should have responded to Mr X’s complaint by 12 April 2022 according to its complaints procedure. However, it was unable to do so. The council sent regular emails confirming it was intending to respond to his complaint. But it did not respond until 19 December 2022.
40. In June 2022 the council confirmed that the VOA had merged the ground and first floor flat to form one property. The council closed one council tax account and sent a refund to Mr X. It retained the original council tax account and changed the banding, sending out a new bill.

The council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

41. In its response to Mr X’s complaint in December 2022, the council apologised for its long delay in responding to him. It explained this was due to the case being complex and because information was required from various departments. It said managers had been made aware of the delays in responding to the complaint.
42. The council said that it was not required to provide a live chat service. It said it had considered this previously. However, it did not have the resources to manage an additional communication method. It explained that the online contact form captured all the relevant information, whereas emails due to being free-form could lead to officers having to contact customers for further information.
43. The council said that it was bound by The Equality Act 2010 and The Public Sector Equality Duty. This meant that the council should take proportionate steps when identifying reasonable adjustments. In light of Mr X’s complaint, the head of policy recommended the council should review the web form to see if any reasonable adjustments needed to be made when customers made contact. The council said that it was also implementing a new customer relationship system. It said it would undertake an equality impact assessment to identify any issues, and ensure its operations were accessible to all.
44. The council said that it considered it had answered all Mr X’s emails within a reasonable timescale except the email of 7 December 2021.
45. The council noted that Mr X referred to different people responding to the online contact form. However, it said that all officers had access to the records, so they could see previous contacts and emails.
46. Mr X said the council did not respond to his emails. It referred to his emails between 9 February 2022 and 16 February 2022. The council said it had replied on 17 February 2022.
47. The council noted Mr X said it knew he was autistic and distressed but failed to respond. However, the council said the only record it had about Mr X being autistic was on 9 February 2022. It said it had explained on 20 January that until the VOA confirmed the change in the property, council tax was still payable on both properties. Therefore, the summons was correct in terms of the council tax charge.
48. Mr X had complained that even when alerted to his complaint the council took no action. However, the council said that it received his contact on 9 February and the emails chasing a response. However, it had replied on 17 February, which was within expected timescales.
49. The council explained that it was the VOA’s responsibility to consider the banding of the property, not the council.
50. The council did not consider that its officers had acted incorrectly. It noted that there had been some delays in its communications.
51. The council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. However, it said that it would review the online web form so that it could see if it was possible to identify a customer’s reasonable adjustments when communicating with the council.

Analysis

52. I consider that there was fault by the council prior to the summons being issued. Mr X had advised the council that he had paid using the council tax account for the first floor flat. The council responded but I consider that it did not check the accounts fully. If it had done so it would have identified that Mr X had overpaid (paid for both accounts) on the account for the first floor flat. As a result of this fault the council issued a summons causing distress to Mr X. I have recommended a remedy in respect of this.
53. I consider that there was fault by the council in its response to Mr X’s complaint because of the excessive delay in responding. While I note the council sent emails confirming it was still considering the complaint, it took from March 2022 until December 2022 for the council to respond to his complaint, when it should have replied by mid April 2022. I have recommended a remedy in respect of this.
54. I have considered Mr X’s other complaints and his points about indirect discrimination and the Equality Act. As I explain in paragraph 8, we cannot decide if a council has breached the Equality Act, as only a court can do this.
55. The council responded to Mr X’s comments about discrimination but did not find it acted incorrectly. I have not found fault here, as the council has provided reasonable responses explaining the reasons why it did not provide a live chat service and why it used an online form. However, it has agreed to review its contact form to improve it with regard to reasonable adjustments.
56. I welcome the council’s proposal to review its online contact form to ensure that this includes information about reasonable adjustments. I have asked the council to provide confirmation about its service improvement here.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. Within one month of my decision, I recommend the council should:
• Pay Mr X £100 for the distress caused by a summons when the council had received information that Mr X had made sufficient payments towards the account.
• Pay Mr X £75 in respect of its delays in responding to his complaint.
• Provide evidence of its consideration of changes to its online contact form to include reasonable adjustment information.
• Set out the steps it proposes to take to prevent delays replying to complaints.
58. The council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have found fault by the council causing injustice to Mr X. The council has agreed an appropriate remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman