Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainants’ council tax bills. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the faults accepted.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs Z complain about the Council’s handling of their council tax bills. They say they were caused distress and inconvenience and want to be compensated for their legal costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In February 2020, the Council received notification from Mr X’s ex-partner that they had left a property, Property 1, in January 2020.
6. In March 2020, Mr X contacted the Council to apply for a single person discount for Property 1 as his ex-partner had left. Mr X gave the Council a conflicting date of when the ex-partner had left. He also told the Council had converted the garage into a studio apartment and was intending to move into the property, Property 2, when he had rented out Property 1.
7. The Council notified the planning authority who opened an enforcement case to carry out enquiries.
8. In October 2020, the revenue team was provided details that Mr X told the planning enforcement team he had been living in Property 2 for over four years and that Property 1 was empty.
9. In February 2021, the Council issued a non-compliance letter to Mr X. Mr X again told the Council at this point that Property 1 was empty as his ex-partner had left in May 2020 and that he had been resident of Property 2 since 2016.
10. In August 2021, the Council sent Mr X an email to confirm the single person discount for Property 1 had been removed due to the property being unoccupied. The Council also asked Mr X to leave Property 2. Mr X left and moved into the Property 1.
11. In February 2022, the Council issued Mr X a letter to confirm the council tax charge for Property 1 would be charged at 200% from January 2022 as the property had been empty for over two years. Mr X disputed this as he said the Council had sufficient information to be aware he was occupying Property 1 since August 2021.
12. The Council said it contacted Mr X and Mrs Z four times between April and September 2022 asking them to provide information of the full names of any previous tenants, the period they were liable, and evidence of these tenancies for Property 1. The Council said full information was not provided until end of September 2022.
13. The Council accepted there was a delay in amending the relevant council tax accounts for Property 1 and 2 as the Council did not update the accounts until February 2023. As a result, the Council accepts the summons that was issued in December 2022 should not have been issued. The Council withdrew the summons and associated costs. The Council also offered a payment of £200 to recognise the time and trouble and distress caused by the delay in amending the accounts.
14. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has accepted there was a delay in amending the accounts and took appropriately recognised if not for the delay, the summons would not have been issued. I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied this as it has withdrawn the summons and the associated costs.
15. Further, the Council has recognised that some injustice will have been caused to Mr X and Mrs Z due to the summons being incorrectly issued. The Council has offered a remedy which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It is not likely an investigation would lead to any further recommendations.
16. I am also satisfied that there is no evidence to support any recommendation for Mr X and Mrs Z’s legal costs to be reimbursed. This is because it was not necessary for solicitors to be engaged to pursue their complaint. Therefore, these costs were not incurred due to any fault by the Council, rather it was their choice to engage with solicitors to pursue their complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X and Mrs Z’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the faults accepted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman