Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax matters. There is not enough remaining injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint or asking the Council for a payment. Investigation is unlikely to achieve anything significant.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s original complaint to us was that the Council had ignored his enquiries about council tax matters. Later, after replies from the Council, he expressed dissatisfaction with some responses and said he wanted compensation.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s original complaint to us in late March 2023 was that the Council had not replied to him. The main relevant points he had put to the Council were:
1. Mr X had asked the Council, originally in January 2023, if he had an appeal right against the Council’s decision to refuse him discretionary council tax relief – On 13 April 2023, the Council told Mr X he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal (VT). It apologised for several previous letters not explaining that, despite Mr X asking. (I note the Council’s first complaint response did not answer this point either.) It said it had given staff training to prevent this happening again.

As the Council has now answered this point, we cannot achieve more about getting a response. I also note Mr X seems to have known about his appeal right anyway by mid-February 2023, when he mentioned the law about VT appeals in a message to the Council. So the Council’s failure to reply did not significantly disadvantage him after then.

2. Mr X had suggested on 16 February 2023 the Council had committed fraud by not telling him about the appeal right in point a) - Allegations of crimes are for the police, not the Ombudsman. Therefore we shall not consider how the Council handled, or should have handled, communications on this point.
3. Mr X had asked the Council on 6 January 2023 about council tax liability orders the Council said it had against him – On 17 February 2023 the Council apologised for not answering this point. It gave some details about the orders and said it got them correctly for unpaid council tax.

The Council answered this point, although the answer might not have satisfied Mr X. Mr X’s complaint to us was about the failure to reply, not the merits of any council tax recovery action. So we cannot achieve more here.

6. Mr X also told the Council he had not been able to access his online Council account, so had needed to get help to apply for discretionary council tax relief. The Council apologised, said its supplier could not identify what had caused Mr X’s problem and advised Mr X what to do if he still wanted an account. Mr X is dissatisfied with that response. However, it is unlikely any investigation by us could reach a clearer view of what happened here.
7. Mr X wants ‘compensation,’ especially for not being told about his appeal right. The Ombudsman does not recommend compensation for damages in the way the courts might. The Ombudsman sometimes recommends a symbolic payment, usually a small amount, to recognise someone’s injustice. However, that is not automatic even where something has gone wrong. I understand Mr X’s view that he has had some unnecessary frustration & inconvenience from the Council not replying fully and promptly to all his points. However, the Ombudsman will normally only pursue complaints with more serious injustice. It is not our role to police or oversee councils’ activities generally. In the circumstances, asking the Council to make a payment to Mr X is not warranted. The key point is that Mr X’s complaint to us was about the Council not replying and the Council has now replied to his main substantive points. Investigating the complaint now would be a disproportionate use of time and public money. The Council’s replies and apologies are enough remedy for any injustice to Mr X.
8. Mr X recently told us the Council has not sent him evidence it said it had about court action it says it took against him, so he has complained to the Council about that. This is a new matter, which he should pursue with the Council first. If he remains dissatisfied after completing the Council’s complaint procedure, he can bring this to the Ombudsman as a new complaint. However, it might be relevant to note 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)

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has now replied to the substantive points. There is not enough remaining injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint or asking the Council for a payment. Investigation is unlikely to achieve anything significant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman