Summary: Ms X complains about the handling of her Council Tax account and the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments in its communication with her. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. Whilst we acknowledge confusion with Ms X’s billing, this could not be attributed to the actions of the Council. The evidence demonstrates it was acting on information received from the DWP. Further, we have not found a basis to criticise the Council’s actions with regards to Ms X’s complaint about reasonable adjustments.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council has managed her Council Tax account and says it also failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communication with her after she sent it a letter informing it of her diagnosis.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

5. I liaised with Ms X and considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. Ms X and the Council. Ms X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Council Tax

6. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of Council Tax and the way councils can recover Council Tax debt. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way enforcement agents may recover debts.
7. The Council Tax bill for the year is due on 1 April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If the liable person misses any instalment, the council will send them a reminder. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance will be due (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).
8. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid Council Tax, a council must apply to a magistrate’s court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has a liability order it can take recovery action.
9. A liability order gives a council the legal power to take enforcement action to collect the Council Tax and court costs owed. The most commonly used powers are asking for deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (this means deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the council) or using enforcement agents. The council can decide which recovery method to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.

Council Tax Reduction Schemes

10. From 1 April 2013 Council Tax benefit was replaced by Council Tax reduction schemes (also known as Council Tax support). Each council in England has its own scheme setting out who is entitled to a reduction in their annual Council Tax bill.
11. In exceptional circumstances, councils can effectively waive some or all of a Council Tax liability or debt, by using their discretionary powers under S13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).
12. Under Section 13A(2) a Council must have a discretionary scheme available. A Taxpayer can appeal for a discretionary discount and the Council should have some mechanism to consider such requests, with criteria against which they are judged. The Council's decision to grant or refuse a discretionary discount is appealable to the Valuation Tribunal.

Department for Work and Pensions

13. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is a UK government department responsible for overseeing welfare and pension policies. Its main roles include administering social security benefits, managing the State Pension system, providing employment support and training, and assessing disability benefits.
14. The DWP sends information to local authorities electronically (e.g., via ATLAS) regarding changes in a claimant's benefit status, which may affect their entitlement to Council Tax reductions. Local authorities rely on DWP data to assess eligibility for CTR schemes. If a claimant's circumstances change (like a new benefit award), this information can trigger a recalculation of their Council Tax liability.
15. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Reasonable adjustments

16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.

Back to top

What happened

2022

19. In December 2022, DWP sent information to Salford Council via ATLAS, triggering a Council Tax reduction (CTR) recalculation for Ms X.
20. In December 2022, Salford Council processed the DWP information regarding Ms X's CTR claim.
21. In December 2022, a bill for £918.30 was issued for the billing years 2021/22 and 2022/23, due mid-January 2023, resulting from the updated CTR claim.
22. In December 2022, Ms X completed a benefits amendment form, questioning the high bill and her CTR entitlement.

2023

23. In February 2023, a new bill for £675.54 was issued due to further notifications from the DWP altering CTR entitlement.
24. In March 2023, an annual bill for £129.95 was issued for the billing year 2023/24.
25. In March 2023, a bill for £349.58 was issued for 2021/22, 2022/23, and 2023/24 due to another CTR recalculation.
26. In January 2023, Ms X contacted the Council Tax department regarding a Direct Debit payment of £918.20 and requested a refund due to overdraft issues.
27. In February 2023, the Benefits team contacted Ms X to explain her nil entitlement period and what documents were needed for reconsideration. Ms X provided the necessary ESA letters.
28. In March 2023, a follow-up email was sent to Ms X confirming her claim reconsideration and increased CTR entitlement.
29. In March 2023, Ms X’s sent an email to her Councillor asking for help with her CTR breakdown.
30. In March 2023, Ms X was contacted by phone regarding her enquiry, and her Council Tax situation was discussed. A new Direct Debit was set up.
31. In March 2023, a further email was sent to Ms X with a detailed breakdown of her Council Tax reduction calculations.
32. In March 2023, a bill for £129.95 was issued for the 2023/24 year due to a cash payment plan change.
33. In March 2023, a bill for £129.95 was reissued for the 2023/24 year after reinstating the Direct Debit.
34. In November 2023, a bill for £494.91 was issued for the 2023/24 year due to a Council Tax reduction recalculation.
35. In November 2023, a bill for £494.91 was issued for 2022/23 and 2023/24 following another DWP notification.
36. In November 2023, a bill for £39.00 was issued for the 2023/24 year, adjusting for increased entitlement based on new DWP information.

2024

37. In January 2024, a reminder was issued for £19.00 due to missed payments.
38. In January 2024, a bill for £39.00 was issued for the 2023/24 year a request for the reinstatement of the Direct Debit.
39. In January 2024, Ms X contacted Debt Advice regarding the reminder notice.
40. In January 2024, Ms X followed up with the Council Tax Team, and a response was sent later in January 2024.
41. In January 2024, a Stage 1 complaint was received by the Council Tax Team and responded to towards the end of January 2024.
42. In February 2024, a Stage 2 complaint was received from MIND in Salford.
43. In February 2024, a phone conversation occurred with MIND, inviting Ms X to apply for a severely mentally impaired exemption.
44. In March 2024, an annual bill for £162.71 was issued for the year 2024/25.
45. In August 2024, a bill for a credit balance of £183.97 was issued following a review of Ms X’s CTR entitlement, correcting previous inaccuracies.

Back to top

Analysis

Council Tax

Council’s Handling of Council Tax Reduction (CTR) and Billing Adjustments

46. The Council was responsible for recalculating Ms X’s Council Tax bill whenever there was a change in her eligibility for Council Tax Reduction (CTR). This process is triggered by updates from the Department for Work and Pensions. The updates can be delayed or arrive separately, depending on how quickly the DWP processes Ms X’s case.
47. When the DWP updated Ms X’s information, the Council adjusted her CTR accordingly, which led to the Council issuing revised Council Tax bills. Ms X experienced multiple recalculations, which resulted in fluctuating amounts due on her Council Tax account. Despite this, the Council ensured that revised bills were issued promptly and explained the changes when Ms X or her representatives (including her Councillor and MIND advocate) inquired.
48. The Council was legally bound to recalculate Ms X’s CTR entitlement whenever her income changed, based on the information provided by the DWP. While these recalculations caused disruption for Ms X, the Council had no discretion in the matter and had to follow the DWP’s data. The Council was not responsible for the delays or inaccuracies in the data provided by the DWP. Since the billing issues stemmed from delayed or incorrect DWP updates, the responsibility for any confusion or inconvenience primarily rests with the DWP, not the Council. On this point, I have not made a finding of fault.

Direct Debit of £918.30

49. After the DWP provided updated information about Ms X’s entitlement, the Council recalculated her Council Tax bill, which resulted in an amount due of £918.30. This was an expected outcome of the recalculations based on the information received from the DWP.
50. A direct debit request for this amount was made by the Council in mid-January 2023, but the payment was rejected by Ms X’s bank. The Council’s records reflected that the amount was still pending until the payment was formally rejected some days later.
51. The Council followed its standard procedures for requesting the direct debit. When a bill is issued and not paid by the due date, it is routine for Council’s to attempt to collect the payment via direct debit. In this case, the Council made the request after recalculating Ms X’s bill, based on the information they had received from the DWP.
52. The fact that the payment was rejected by Ms X’s bank was outside of the Council’s control. The Council acted in good faith, assuming that the payment would go through unless the bank rejected it, which they only became aware of later in January 2023.
53. While Ms X may have been distressed by believing that the payment had been taken, the Council’s action was in line with what be expected in such cases. The pending status of the payment did not constitute an error by the Council, and the misunderstanding arose because of how the bank processed the direct debit request.
54. Ms X expressed distress about the £918.30 payment, believing it had been taken from her account. To address her concerns, the Council offered to refund two-thirds of the payment as a goodwill gesture. This was done before the direct debit status had been fully confirmed. When the Council learned that the payment had been rejected by the bank, the refund offer became unnecessary, as no payment had actually been taken from Ms X’s account. On this point, I have not made a finding of fault.

Reasonable adjustments

55. Ms X’s ADHD diagnosis letter, which was submitted as part of the Stage 2 complaint, was addressed “to whom it may concern” and provided general guidance on reasonable adjustments for individuals with ADHD. This letter included a list of typical accommodations recommended by NHS England but did not outline specific, personalised adjustments relevant to Ms X’s situation or Council Tax processes.
56. Since the letter was not specifically tailored to Ms X’s needs or circumstances in relation to her Council Tax Reduction (CTR) claim or Council Tax account, the Council had limited actionable information. Nevertheless, they proactively contacted MIND to clarify any additional adjustments that could be necessary.
57. The ADHD letter was general and did not provide the Council with a specific list of adjustments that would be relevant to Ms X’s interactions with them. Without clear direction or personalized requirements, the Council cannot be expected to make changes outside the general best practices they already follow.
58. By the time Ms X raised the issue of reasonable adjustments, she was already enrolled in the Council’s SMS and paperless billing service, meaning she was receiving digital reminders when bills were issued or when payments were missed.
59. The Council explained to Ms X and her advocate that several of the adjustments typically recommended for individuals with ADHD were already being utilized in her case. For example, the Council provides regular reminders via SMS and email. Additionally, they offered face-to-face support at local gateways, where staff could help explain Ms X’s account and any adjustments she might be entitled to.
60. The evidence demonstrates that the Council was already accommodating Ms X’s condition. There were:
• Frequent reminders (via SMS and email) directly address potential challenges with ADHD, such as forgetfulness or disorganization.
• In-person support available, for individuals who might struggle with online systems or phone interactions.
61. These actions are in line with the general recommendations in the ADHD diagnosis letter, and the Council’s proactive offering of an exemption for Severe Mental Impairment (SMI) further demonstrates their commitment to ensuring Ms X was supported. Since no specific requests for adjustments were made beyond these, the Council acted within its remit by maintaining these reasonable accommodations. There was no failure to meet a known need.
62. From the evidence available to me, the Council acted responsibly in response to Ms X’s ADHD diagnosis. The lack of specific, tailored requests for adjustments in the letter limits any fault that could be attributed to the Council. It made reasonable efforts to ensure that appropriate adjustments were in place and proactively engaged with Ms X’s advocate to explain the available support systems. Moreover, the Council’s existing support infrastructure seems well-designed to accommodate individuals with ADHD and similar conditions. As a result, there is no clear indication of fault in how the Council handled this aspect of Ms X’s complaint, and I have not found a basis with which to criticise the Council. On this point, I have not made a finding of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have concluded my investigation having not made a finding of fault. Whilst I acknowledge confusion with Ms X’s billing, this could not be attributed to the actions of the Council. The evidence demonstrates it was acting on information received from the DWP. Further, I have not found a basis to criticise the Council’s actions with regards to Ms X’s complaint about reasonable adjustments.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman