Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed a change of liability for a council tax account. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council managed a change of liability for a council tax account. Mr X says the Council’s offer of £150 as a financial remedy is inadequate; he says £750 would be a more appropriate amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is a landlord. For a few weeks earlier in the year he was liable for the council tax while a property was between tenants. Mr X provided the Council with all the correct information to ensure a swift change in liability from the former tenant to Mr X and then to the new tenant.
5. However, there were multiple errors by the Council. For example, it took about four months to provide a correct bill, closed some accounts in error, provided the wrong dates on bills and in the complaint correspondence, and wrongly blamed Mr X for providing inaccurate information. Mr X also complained the Council uses the wrong address by referring to the floor the flat is on.
6. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. It apologised and accepted it made many errors. It explained what had gone wrong and said learning points had been identified and would be raised with officers. The Council accepted Mr X did not provide inaccurate information and it issued correct bills, albeit after a delay. The Council awarded a financial remedy of £150.
7. Mr X wants more than £150 and has suggested £750 would be more appropriate to reflect his stress and time and trouble. However, the Council’s offer of £150 reflects our guidance and is proportionate to the impact caused by the errors. There is nothing to suggest Mr X suffered a financial loss and there was no court or bailiff action. We may recommend higher financial remedies when there has been a significant financial loss, court proceedings or bailiff action caused by council error.
8. I do not know if the Council responded to Mr X’s request for it to change the way the property is listed in terms of the address. I appreciate Mr X thinks the current record of the address is wrong and does not reflect Council policy; but any lack of response about this issue, or the way the address is recorded, has not caused Mr X an injustice which requires an investigation. Further, we may decide a council’s response is satisfactory even if it does not provide everything someone may wish for or answer every point.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman