Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing incorrect information about the complainant receiving a refund of his council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. The complainant also complains the Council took him to court for non-payment of his council tax. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint about the start of court action.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains the Council gave him incorrect information about his council tax and failed to refund him an amount he overpaid. He also complains the Council took him to court in relation to non-payment of his council tax. Mr X says these issues adversely affected his health and left him without enough money for essentials. He wants the Council to acknowledge it has made mistakes and compensate him for the impact had on him.

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)).
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following a change to Mr X’s household, the Council created a new council tax account for him. The closed council tax account held a credit balance of approximately £550. Mr X says he was told by the Council this amount would be refunded to him, but this never happened. The Council accepts Mr X was told this, but says on further inspection that it identified another council tax account held by him which had an outstanding balance. It therefore transferred the credit to the other account to offset the arrears.
6. The Council accepts fault in that it advised a refund could be made in the first instance and it has apologised to Mr X for this. Before accepting a complaint however, we must be satisfied any fault is likely to have caused Mr X a significant and personal injustice. This means Mr X would likely need to have been caused serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the fault. Given an amount in council tax was owed by Mr X, any injustice is limited to him being incorrectly advised. The Council has since corrected the information given to Mr X and I consider there is insufficient evidence of him suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
7. In addition, I note Mr X also complains about the Council taking him to court in respect of non-payment of his council tax. We cannot by law investigate in these circumstances as the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate part of the complaint about the start of court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman