Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and benefits matters. The Council properly reached its decision not to backdate council tax reduction for 2018 to 2023. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the 2024/25 council tax. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s court action and costs. It would be disproportionate in the circumstances to investigate whether, had the Council acted differently sooner, the court action would not have happened. There are not enough grounds to investigate the alleged delay with the housing benefit claim. It would not be a good use of resources to investigate the Council’s communications with Mr X in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly handled his council tax account and housing benefit claim. He says this caused him financial loss, stress, effort pursuing matters and he was taken to court.

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 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)
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 or reduction.
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), 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 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)
7. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant. I got a copy of the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme online.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Council tax 2018 to 2023

10. Mr X believes he paid too much council tax between 2018 and 2023 because his household did not apply for the council tax reduction (CTR) he believes it would have been entitled to. He wants to receive this now. Mr X complains the Council will not backdate a CTR application more than one month.
11. Each council can have its own policy on how far back to backdate CTR for applicants below the state pension age, as Mr X is. The Council’s policy is only to backdate where the applicant had good cause for not claiming sooner and then only by up to one month. Some councils have the same backdating limit, others have longer limits. The Council is entitled to have the policy it does. Its position in Mr X’s case is in line with its policy. Therefore the Council properly reached its position here. As paragraph 7 explained, that means we cannot criticise the Council’s position, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.

Council tax for the 2024/25 year

12. Mr X believes the Council is not properly calculating his household’s income and therefore the CTR entitlement in this council tax year. Mr X argues this means the Council is demanding too much council tax. If someone believes they are not liable for all the council tax demanded, because the Council has not properly applied a discount such as CTR, the Valuation Tribunal can decide the matter. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies here.
13. The law expressly provides this route for such matters, so we usually expect people to use it. The Valuation Tribunal does not charge a fee for appealing. It has the expertise to decide such matters and the power to make a binding order overturning the Council’s position if it sees fit. Mr X can pursue matters with the Council and us, so I see nothing preventing him appealing to the Valuation Tribunal. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use the tribunal appeal right.

Court action

14. The Council issued a court summons for council tax. Mr X attended court but did not appear before a magistrate. The Council got a liability order and charged Mr X £100 court costs, which it later removed. Mr X states the Council later reduced his council tax bill below the amount for which it had taken court action. The restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us considering any events related to court action from the Council issuing the summons to the court issuing the liability order. It also covers the level of court costs.
15. I appreciate Mr X argues the court action should not have happened in the first place. We must consider the proportionality of investigating an allegation of fault. Here, the Council has reduced the bill (I understand Mr X’s account went into credit) and removed the court costs. In the circumstances, even if we were to investigate and uphold this point of complaint, it is unlikely we would achieve significantly more than that. Investigating this point would therefore be a disproportionate use of our resources, though I recognise Mr X’s dissatisfaction.

Housing benefit claim

16. Mr X claimed Housing Benefit from the Council. He says the Council took too long to tell him he should instead claim the housing cost element of Universal Credit from central government.
17. I realise Mr X feels frustration the Council did not explain this sooner. However, that in itself is not a significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating. Mr X might also have concerns he missed help with his housing costs in the meantime. However, it is reasonable to expect him to seek help with that from his Universal Credit claim. If that does not resolve the matter, the Council also said it could consider a discretionary housing payment to help with a shortfall between the Universal Credit housing element and his rent. There is not enough evidence any Council delay disadvantaged Mr X significantly enough in practical terms to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating whether the Council was at fault here.

The Council’s communications with Mr X

18. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s communications with him about this matter. He reports the Council sent numerous different, incorrect council tax bills, did not respond to many of his enquiries and sent responses containing errors. I appreciate Mr X is frustrated. However, it is not a good use of resources to investigate complaints about a Council’s communications when we are not investigating the underlying substantive matters.
19. Mr X also questions the value to taxpayers of the money the Council spends on customer support. The cost to Mr X or other council taxpayers is a matter affecting most of the people in the Council’s area. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 5 prevents us considering this point.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council properly reached its decision not to backdate CTR for 2018 to 2023. It reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the 2024/25 council tax. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s court action and costs. It would be disproportionate to investigate whether, had the Council acted differently sooner, the court action would have been avoided. There are not enough grounds to investigate the alleged delay with the housing benefit claim. It would not be a good use of resources to investigate the Council’s communications with Mr X in isolation. The law prevents us considering the cost of the Council’s customer support activities.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman