Summary: Mr C complained about Council’s handling of his council tax charges and how it responded to his concerns and requests. He said this caused him distress and he was overcharged. The Council found its charges had been correct. However, it accepted it had failed to respond in a timely manner and in line with Mr C’s reasonable adjustment request. It apologised and paid him a symbolic payment. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate to acknowledge the impact its fault had on Mr C, and there was no evidence he had been overcharged.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about the Council’s handling of his council tax liability. He said it:
• wrongly considered he underpaid council tax in 2023 and wrongly issued reminders and court action against him. He said he overpaid council tax during this period; and
• failed to provide a simple breakdown of his council tax payments, which he requested as a reasonable adjustment. This was to enable him to understand why it found he had council tax arrears. He said this amounted to discrimination.
2. Mr C said, as a result, he experienced distress and uncertainty, and he had a financial loss.

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. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Mr C’s complaint relates to events and charges which occurred more than 12 months ago. His complaint is therefore late. However, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to consider his complaint from 2023 and have regard to earlier payments to understand what has happened.
10. I have not investigated other complaints Mr C made regarding the Council as these relates to different issues and complaints processes.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr C 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

Relevant law and policy

Council Tax Collection Policy

13. A person liable for Council tax will receive a bill within 28 days of the Council setting the level of Council tax for each financial year. This will show who is responsible, the amount due, and any exemptions or reliefs applicable.
14. Each bill will normally allow for monthly payment which can be on different days of the month.
15. If a person does not pay the monthly liability they can be issued with a reminder notice. If the account remains in arrears after seven days, the full annual council tax will come due.
16. If a person has brought payments in line with the monthly instalments after having received a reminder, but again gets into arrears, a second reminder notice or a Final Notice can be issue. A maximum of two reminder notices will be issued. The Council may then take court action to enforce payment of debt.

The Equality Act 2010

17. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
18. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
19. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act includes disability.
20. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
21. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
22. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
23. 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.

Background

24. Mr C lives in the Council’s area and is subject to council tax charges. The Council has each financial year sent Mr C a bill which sets out his annual council tax charge and the monthly instalments he should pay.
25. Mr C has consistently paid his council tax each year. However, he has paid in lump sums every few months and not the monthly instalments.
26. In 2023 Mr C made a payment greater than his monthly instalment a few months into the financial year, and further payments in the Autumn. He was under the belief he was in credit.
27. However, the Council sent him two reminder notices and issued a court summons. A liability order was issued in late 2023. The full council tax for the year became due.
28. Mr C disputed the arrears with the Council. He asked for a full breakdown of his council tax charges and payments made over several years. He told the Council he has cognitive disability, which is why he was making lumpsum payments in advance.
29. The Council arranged a payment plan for Mr C. However, Mr C continued to ask the Council for clarification of the debt. He did not pay the instalments as set in the payment plan and the full amount became due, which Mr C settled in early 2024.
30. Mr C complained to the Council about its failure to provide a breakdown of his council tax payments since late 2023, its poor communication, and incorrect charges which meant he should not have been taken to court. He explained how he needed its response as a reasonable adjustment request.
31. The Council provided some breakdown of Mr C’s and payments for several tax years. In Summer 2024 the Council provided its response to Mr C, it
• apologised for the delay in responding to his concerns;
• explained Mr C had a shortfall in his council tax payments in 2022/23, which it had issued reminder notices for. Part of his first payment within the 2023/24 tax year had therefore been allocated to the previous tax year. As a result, he was in council tax arrears in the 2023/24 tax year despite his payment;
• agreed to credit his account with cost of the summons and liability order as a gesture of goodwill and his good payment history; and
• asked Mr C if he wanted his concerns considered under its complaints process.
32. Mr C sent a pre-action letter to the Council, and approached the Ombudsman.
33. In Autumn 2024 Mr C again raised his concerns with the Council. This was because he believed he had been overcharged, felt the summons had been incorrectly issued, and due to its failure to respond properly to his concerns.
34. The Council sought clarification over what the Ombudsman was considering, which was provided.
35. In late 2024 the Council sent Mr C a response to his complaint. It shared a full summary of Mr C’s council tax charges and payments received during the last five years. It found its calculations were correct and the balance outstanding was his 2024 liability. It upheld his complaint as it accepted it had not handled and responded to his concerns in a timely or appropriate away. It considered the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance and offered a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress and time & trouble he had.
36. However, Mr C did not see the Council’s response. He therefore continued to chase the Council for a response to his concerns, which the Council re-sent in February 2025.
37. Mr C told the Ombudsman he had accepted the Council’s symbolic payment but asked it for a more detailed breakdown as he had previously requested. He also remained dissatisfied with how it had responded to his concerns and remained of the belief he had overpaid council tax. He questioned whether it had actually sent the complaint response in late 2024.
38. In March 2025 the Council shared a detailed breakdown of his council tax payments against his liability for several tax years. This was in response to his information request.
39. As Mr C had not escalated his complaint with the Council, we asked the Council to provide its final complaint response to Mr C in April 2025.
40. In May 2025 the Council provided its final complaint response to Mr C. It upheld his complaint, as in its stage one response. It said:
• it had caused significant delays in responding to his council tax enquiries and provide the breakdown he asked for;
• when it initially provided a breakdown this did not include important information which would have helped clarify the reasons for the recovery action;
• it explained how it had applied part of his first payment in 2023/24 to the previous tax year due to a shortfall. Including why reminder notices were subsequently sent in line with its process. It found Mr C’s charges had been correct; and
• it had refunded the court summons and paid a symbolic payment of £300. However, it had reconsidered and offered an additional £100 to acknowledge the impact he has experienced.
41. Mr C asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
42. As part of our investigation, we asked the Council for information. This included the council tax liability and payments Mr C made since 2021, evidence it had sent its stage one complaint response, and its communication with him.

Analysis and findings

Were the Council charges for Mr C’s council tax correct?

43. Mr C believes the Council had overcharged him council tax. The evidence shows:
• Mr C has a shortfall in payments in 2021/22. The Council issued two reminders. The Council used part of Mr C’s payment in 2022/23 to settle the previous tax year;
• Mr C had a short fall in 2022/23. The Council issued two reminders. The Council used part of Mr C’s June 2023 payment to settle the previous tax year;
• the Council did not inform Mr C it used part of his payments in new tax years to settle the previous year’s council tax liability;
• Mr C believed he was on track with his payments and made payments in in line with each year’s liability.
44. I found the Council acted in line with its policy. It was entitled to use payments received in a new tax year to settle the previous years balance. The total balance Mr C paid against his liability shows he has not overpaid council tax. Nor has he been charged for the court summons as the cost of these have been refunded. I am therefore satisfied Mr C has not been overcharged by the Council.

Was the Council at fault for how it handled Mr C’s requests?

45. The Council has accepted fault for how it responded to Mr C’s concerns and requests for clarification around his council tax bills.
46. I agree with the Council’s findings, which were it:
• caused unnecessary delay in responding to Mr C, including in its complaints handling. However, it showed evidence it had sent its stage one response;
• failed to provide the breakdown in the way he had requested in line with his reasonable adjustment request, and its initial breakdown did not include all the necessary information for him to understand the charges;
• failed to properly explain its process to use payments in a new tax year to settle a previous tax years shortfall. This was what caused Mr C to believe he was on track with his payment. It was first in Summer 2024 this was partly explained, and a clear full response was provided in April 2025.
47. Mr C said the Council’s actions amounted to discrimination. I cannot say whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010, only a court can do so. However, I am satisfied the Council failed to have proper regard to its duties under the act to make the reasonable information about his council tax charges available to him in a way he could understand without unnecessary delay.
48. I have considered the remedy the Council has offered and provided to Mr C against the impact its faults caused. This was its apology, to refund or credit the court summons and liability order, and a symbolic payment of £400. It has also confirmed it has taken learning from the complaint and shared this internally to improve its responses.
49. I found the Council’s remedy was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. No further remedy or action is therefore required.

Back to top

Decision

50. I found fault causing injustice. The Council has already apologised and satisfactorily remedied the injustice this caused Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman