Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding council tax from Mr X. This is mainly because the Council has now put matters right adequately.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s representative complains the Council wrongly demanded council tax Mr X did not owe because he was in prison. The representative states this caused financial worry and stress.

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. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant’s representative.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. An empty home is exempt from council tax while its usual resident is in prison. When Mr X’s representative complained to us, the Council had demanded council tax from Mr X, including getting a liability order from a court and adding the court costs to the council tax bill. Mr X’s representative complained that should not have happened because the Council knew Mr X was in prison at the relevant time. Mr X’s representative wanted the Council to cancel the alleged council tax debt, apply the exemption to the council tax account and to keep in touch with them for updates on Mr X’s whereabouts.
8. After the complaint to us, but before we started dealing with the complaint, the Council applied the exemption to Mr X’s council tax account, reduced the bill accordingly and removed the court costs from the bill.
9. Mr X’s representative still wants to pursue the complaint, arguing the Council: wrongly failed to give the exemption sooner; was wrong to go to court for a liability order; and failed to deal properly with the formal complaint about the matter.
10. The Council’s application for a liability order was the start of court action. The restriction in paragraph 5 prevents us considering that action, or any other action during the court proceedings until the court granted the liability order.
11. I appreciate Mr X and his representative argue the Council already knew Mr X was in prison so should have given the exemption, in which case it would not have reached the point of starting court action. However, we will not investigate a complaint just because a Council might have been at fault. We will only investigate if any remaining injustice to the complainant is significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint and if our involvement is likely to achieve significantly more.
12. I am mindful the court action and the Council seeking a significant amount of money would have been worrying for Mr X when he was in an already stressful situation. Nevertheless, the main impact on Mr X when he complained to us was the potential financial impact of having to pay the council tax and court costs. The Council has resolved that. In that context, I do not consider any remaining worry or sense of grievance is a significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating. Nor is any such investigation likely to add significantly more, in practical terms, to what the Council has now done.
13. Mr X and his representative are also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has done enough to address the main point. There is not significant enough remaining unremedied injustice to warrant us investigating. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve significantly more. The law prevents us investigating the point about the Council starting court action. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman