Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to his Council Tax liability and the behaviour of one of its officers. We will not investigate this complaint because events from past years fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr X would have had the opportunity to dispute liability via the Valuation Tribunal and we cannot consider matters already considered by the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I call Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to his Council Tax liability and the behaviour of one of its officers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
9. I gave the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X complained to the Council about matters dating back a number of years concerning his liability for Council Tax and about the behaviour of one officer in particular who he believed had discriminated against him.
11. The restrictions highlighted above at paragraphs 3-6 apply to Mr X’s complaint and place events from past years which Mr X could have complained to us about earlier, and disputes about his liability for Council Tax, outside our jurisdiction.
12. Mr X complaint about the behaviour of the officer was considered again recently by the Council and it met with Mr X to discuss matters. Having done so it concluded there was no evidence to suggest discrimination against Mr X. However, it accepted that the behaviour of the officer was not at the standard it would expect. It apologised for this and confirmed that the behaviours complained about would be discussed with the officer and a suitable course of action taken.
13. As an investigation by the Ombudsman into this matter is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome, we will not investigate it.
14. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says the issue he complained about relates to Medway Magistrates Court reducing the amount of Council Tax he owed from about £10,000 to £4,000 in about 2016/2017 but that he is being taken back to another court now for the full amount. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons already explained and it will for the court to decide whether to issue a fresh order for Mr X’s Council Tax debt.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because events from past years fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr X would have had the opportunity to dispute liability via the Valuation Tribunal and we cannot consider matters already considered by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman