Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in issuing a council tax refund. This is because the Council has provided a fair and proportionate response and there is not enough injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council failed to issue a council tax refund and only issued it later after she asked for it. Mrs X says some complaint replies were late and the Council did not reply to her last email. Mrs X also complains of poor customer service.

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:

• the Council has provided a fair response, 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 Mrs X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s policy is to make automatic council tax refunds when someone has a credit after moving and pays by direct debit.
5. In late March 2022 Mrs X told the Council she had moved. The direct debit was taken on the day of the notification because it was too late to stop the payment. The Council issued the closing bill on 19 April which showed Mrs X had a credit of £57. Mrs X had paid by direct debit so expected an automatic refund.
6. Mrs X had not received the refund by 12 May so she contacted the Council. The Council said there had been an error and the refund had not been processed. The Council said she would receive it by 18 May.
7. Mrs X received the refund on 24 May. In response to her complaint the Council confirmed it should have paid the refund automatically. It apologised and said training had been provided to the officer who made the mistake. It also said refunds take up to 14 days to process from the date of the bill and she should have received the refund by 3 May. The Council apologised because an officer incorrectly told Mrs X she would get the refund by 18 May; the Council said this would be raised with the officer. The Council accepted there had been an error and a three week delay in issuing the refund but declined Mrs X’s request for compensation.
8. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the response and says the Council did not respond to her subsequent email asking why the second complaint reply was late. Mrs X says she only got the refund because she chased the Council and the delay in receiving the money caused excessive stress and made her ill. She says there was a two month delay in receiving her money and says the Council showed poor customer service at every stage. She also questions whether the issues were raised with the officers who made the errors. Mrs X wants an investigation and compensation.
9. There was a failure by the Council to automatically process the refund and it gave the wrong date for receipt of the money. The Council has apologised, issued the refund and arranged staff training. This was a fair and proportionate response and, once this is taken into account, there is not enough outstanding injustice to require an investigation. There is no reason for me to doubt the Council when it said the officers would be spoken to and it is not necessary for me to check.
10. I appreciate Mrs X found the episode stressful but a delay of three weeks in relation to £57 does not represent a degree of injustice requiring an investigation or compensation. I do not agree the delay was two months as Mrs X suggests; although the final direct debit was taken on 25 March and the final bill produced on 19 April, this reflects bill processing, which is largely automated, not delay. Mrs X should have received the refund by 3 May but did not get it until 24 May – this was the period of delay but, within this, Mrs X knew on 12 May she would be getting the refund.
11. There was a small delay in issuing the complaint reply, and it would have been better if the Council had replied to Mrs X’s final email but this, again, does not represent a degree of injustice requiring an investigation. And, while Mrs X complains of poor customer service, I have not seen anything which suggests we need to start an investigation or that compensation is required.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman