Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending erroneous council tax credit notifications to Mr X in 2023. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s mistake which it promptly corrected within three days.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council sending him notification in July 2023 that he was over £5,400 in credit on his council tax account following a re-assessment of his council tax reduction claim and property banding. Three days later the Council issued amended notification reducing the credit to £1,628 because it said the initial notification letters had not been withdrawn and should not have been issued. He says the Council should pay the difference and pay him interest for the years he was on a higher tax banding.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council sent a notification in July 2023 that he was over £5,400 in credit on his council tax account after his property was re-banded by the Valuation Office Agency. Three days later the Council issued an amended notification reducing the credit to £1,628 because it said the initial notification letters had not been withdrawn until the changed tax reduction could be recalculated.
6. Mr X claimed the difference of £4289.31and in addition requested interest for the backdated reduction of his banding. The Council told Mr X he was not entitled to the amount in the original notification, had not been refunded this and could not claim the money. It says the council tax reduction had to be re-calculated and the original notification was clearly incorrect as the award exceeded the actual liability for previous years.
7. The Valuation Office Agency decides appeals against the banding of property but it does not include interest on any retrospective recalculations. If Mr X believed his council tax reduction had been miscalculated he could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal in July 2023 but he did not challenge this.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case Mr X was only notified about a credit to which he was not entitled for a period of three days and no refund was issue which would have been reclaimed so the injustice is limited and the Council’s apology is sufficient.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending erroneous council tax credit notifications to Mr X in 2023. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s mistake which it promptly corrected within three days.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman