Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about some council tax letters the complainant says were misleading. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council sent misleading council tax letters which said he both owed money and was owed a refund. He wants us to audit closed council tax accounts and tell the Council to stop sending letters which wrongly tell people they owe money.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the disputed letters provided by Mr X and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X was liable for council tax from July 2022 to 16 January 2023. On 25 January the Council sent a letter which asked him to pay the outstanding amount. He also received a statement which showed the account was in credit.
5. The Council updated the account on 25 January and issued a bill on 26 January which showed a credit of £144. The bill said, “This notice is for your information. No payment is necessary”. I have seen a hand-written note from Mr X saying he called the Council on 30 January about the refund. Mr X received the refund.
6. In response to his complaint the Council denied there was anything misleading and reiterated that the letters/bills showed a credit and were not a demand for payment. In response to my enquiries the Council said the initial complaint replies did not reflect that one letter was issued before the account was updated so it wrongly referred to Mr X owing council tax. The Council has since written to Mr X to explain and to apologise.
7. There were a couple of Council errors – issuing a letter before updating the account and not explaining this in the initial complaint replies. But this does not amount to fault requiring an investigation and does not mean there is any need for us to audit closed accounts. In any case, we are not auditors and there is nothing to suggest this is a widespread issue. Instead, a statement was issued prematurely before the account was updated to reflect the final bill.
8. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Mr X received a letter asking him to pay the outstanding council tax but a day or so later he received a bill which clearly said no payment was due; and, by 30 January, he had spoken to the Council about a refund. So, within a few days, he was aware he was in credit and had received clear information he did not owe anything. Mr X subsequently received the refund and has not incurred any financial loss. I appreciate Mr X may feel he has been misled but the impact is not one that requires an investigation.
9. Mr X says he is not claiming there has been fault or injustice. But, our role is to consider complaints of fault leading to injustice. We can, where appropriate, consider if a fault has affected other people or consider if we need to ask a council to make procedural changes. But, for the reasons explained above, there are insufficient grounds to start an investigation or to ask the Council to take any action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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