Summary: We did not find fault in the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s (Mr X) Council Tax. We did not find the Council had failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The complaint

1. Mr Y, acting on behalf of his father (Mr X) complains about the way the Council dealt with Mr X when adjusting the Council Tax payments. He says the Council:
• Did not make the process clear;
• Communicated poorly;
• Failed to consider his father’s vulnerability.
2. Mr Y says the Council’s failings resulted in issuing court summons, which was distressing for Mr X and entailed an administrative fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mr Y and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I referred to our guidance notes “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”.
9. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

10. In our guidance notes “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” we explain how councils should deliver their services to the public. They should:
• Be service-user focused through:
1. Ensuring people can access services easily, including those needing reasonable adjustments;
2. Dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances;
3. Recognising and respecting the diversity of service users and adopting an inclusive approach.
• Acting fairly and proportionately through:
1. Being impartial and treating people with respect and courtesy;
2. Treating people without unlawful discrimination or prejudice;
3. Dealing with people and issues objectively and consistently.

Equality Act 2010

11. Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic.
12. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;
• and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

What happened

13. At the beginning of August 2023 Mr X received a Council Tax reminder notice stating that he should pay £220.80 within seven days. It said he also should pay the instalments on the dates shown in the notice. The instalments table showed payments of £218 due on the fifth of the months from August 2023 until February 2024.
14. Mr X called the Council Tax team in mid-August and explained he could not make a payment online using his credit card. The Council officer asked him if he wished to make a payment by phone and Mr X confirmed this was his intention. Mr X provided his Council Tax account number to identify the payment. Mr X paid £218.
15. Shortly afterwards Mr X contacted the Council again to have his Council Tax banding adjusted.
16. Mr X set up a standing order for the next Council Tax payments.
17. At the beginning of September Mr X received a second Council Tax reminder notice, stating that he should pay £219.03 within seven days. It said he should also pay an extra amount of £216.32 which was due in September 2023. The notice stated Mr X should continue to pay his remaining instalments when due. The notice included information that if Mr X failed to pay the amount pointed out within seven days the full balance of £1,516.95 would become due. The lack of payment might trigger legal proceedings and extra costs. The Council said no further reminders would be sent.
18. A day after the second reminder notice the Council received £218 paid to Mr X’s Council Tax account via standing order.
19. At the beginning of October Mr X received court summons for a non-payment of Council Tax. The cost of £85 was added to £1,310.80 payable as Council Tax for 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. The notice stated the whole sum should be paid before the date of the court hearing or Mr X could make payments of £233 on 15th day of every month from October 2023 until February 2024 and a payment of £230.80 in March 2024.
20. Two days later Mr Y made a credit card payment of £1,395.80. A day later Mr X’s standing order for £218 was paid in lieu of the Council Tax instalment for October 2023.
21. The Council told us it did not have any control over the standing order set up by Mr X. It has reduced Mr X’s Council Tax for 2024/2025 by the overpayment of £218.

Analysis

22. Having examined all the evidence and having listened to Mr X’s phone call with the Council officer from mid-August 2023 I do not find fault in the Council’s actions about Mr X’s Council Tax payments. This is for the following reasons:
• The Council’s reminder notices clearly set up what should be paid and, on both occasions, listed two payments to be made. After receiving notices both times Mr X made just one payment. He paid an instalment by phone in mid-August 2023 and was aware of the standing order being set up from September 2023.
• During a telephone call in mid-August Mr X did not refer to a reminder notice. He said he had found it difficult to make an online payment and asked to pay by phone using his card. Mr X gave his account number as identification. I do not consider in such circumstances the Council officer was wrong to assume Mr X wished to pay his normal Council Tax instalment. Mr X did not say anything which should have prompted the Council officer to look at his account to find out whether there were any overdue payments.
• Although the Council Tax amount in both reminder notices varied and might have been confusing, the Council explained to me it had happened due to the automatic system used to calculate Council Tax arrears. Any overdue payment below £5 is disregarded by the system, otherwise it could lead to the recovery of small sums and disproportionate costs. I am satisfied this system means Mr X’s Council Tax payment was reduced rather than increased.
• The court summons sent to Mr X at the beginning of October 2023 set up an alternative schedule of the Council Tax payments. Mr X and Mr Y could have chosen this option rather than paying the whole amount of Council Tax due for 2022/2023 and 2023/2024.
• The Council cannot be held responsible for the Council Tax overpayment of £218 for 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. The Council had no control over a standing order set up for the Council Tax instalments by Mr X. The Council acted correctly by reducing Mr X’s Council Tax liability for 2024/2025 by the sum of this overpayment.
23. As part of his complaint Mr Y said the Council had ignored Mr X’s vulnerability as an older person for whom English is not the first language and who had had various health problems. Based on the telephone conversation recording from mid-August 2023 I do not consider the Council had any reasons to treat Mr X as a vulnerable person because:
• Mr X’s English is fluent and there is no evidence of any difficulties with either understanding or communicating;
• Mr X’s health problems could not be detected from the way he communicated with the Council officer;
• Nothing in the telephone conversation which took place in mid-August 2023 indicated Mr X’s vulnerability caused by his age.
24. Based on the above I do not find the Council had any reasons to treat Mr X as a vulnerable person. The age of the service user does not automatically trigger any extra duties on the Council’s part. As explained in paragraph ten of this decision we expect councils to treat its residents with sensitivity and be flexible. I found the Council officer polite and respectful throughout his conversation with Mr X. As there was no indication of Mr X’s vulnerability we would not expect the Council to make any adjustments when providing its services to him.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I do not uphold this complaint. For the reasons explained in the Analysis section I did not find fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s Council Tax payments. I did not find the Council failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman