Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X could reasonably appeal, or have appealed, to the Valuation Tribunal about council tax decisions. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is not proportionate to investigate the alleged discrimination on its own.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council did not give him the single person discount (SPD) on his council tax and then gave it without backdating it far enough. He also complains the Council wrongly withdrew his council tax support (CTS). Mr X says this affected his health and caused financial problems because he paid too much council tax.

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 has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support.
5. 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)
6. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide: we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Single Person’s Discount

9. When Mr X complained to us, the Council had not given him the SPD he had asked for. The Council then awarded the SPD. So we cannot achieve more about having the Council make a decision on the matter, as that has now happened.
10. The Council’s decision backdated the discount to 2023. Mr X argues he qualified for the discount several years before that. Mr X has the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the period the discount should be backdated. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The law expressly provides this route to resolve such matters, so we normally expect people to use it. The Valuation Tribunal has the expertise to decide such matters and the power to make a binding decision. The Council’s letter awarding the discount told Mr X about his appeal right. Also, when Mr X first contacted us, we sent a factsheet that said we normally expect people to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal where they have that right. The appeal process is relatively straightforward. Mr X could ask the Tribunal to make any necessary reasonable adjustments for any disability that might make the appeal process more difficult. I note Mr X has been able to pursue matters with the Council and with us. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal right about the backdating period.

Council Tax Support

11. Mr X argues he should receive council tax support (CTS) because his income is low. The Council ended Mr X’s CTS some time between 2019 and 2022. Mr X knew about that decision by November 2022 at the latest.
12. Mr X would have had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council ending his CTS. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies here too. The law expressly provides this right for such situations. As explained above, the Valuation Tribunal has the proper expertise and powers. It can make reasonable adjustments where necessary for appellants with disabilities. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed if he disagreed with his CTS ending.
13. Also, Mr X has known since at least November 2022 that his CTS had ended. He complained to us in May 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies here. This part of the complaint is late. Mr X’s correspondence with the Council since November 2022 shows he can pursue matters. Mr X has known about our service since at least May 2023. I see no good reason to accept the late complaint about this point now.
14. If Mr X believes he qualifies for CTS now, he can apply to the Council. It is not for us to decide his current eligibility for CTS.

Alleged discrimination

15. Mr X suggests the Council’s treatment of his council tax matters involves age, race and religious discrimination. We are not investigating the substantive points about the council tax decisions on which Mr X says the Council might have discriminated. Therefore it would be disproportionate to investigate in isolation whether the Council took account of its duties under the Equality Act. Also, only the courts can rule on whether an organisation has breached the Equality Act.

Alleged impact on Mr X’s health

16. The alleged effect on Mr X’s health is a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 5 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability for personal injury is not straightforward legally. It is more suitable for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X could reasonably appeal about the SPD backdating. For the CTS, Mr X could reasonably have appealed when he had the right and the complaint about that point is also late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is not proportionate to investigate the alleged discrimination on its own.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman