Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax liability and the Council delaying responses to his letters. This is because, at our invitation, the Council agreed to pay a symbolic payment to Mr X. We consider this to be a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:

1. The Council ignored him and discriminated against him because he is elderly and does not have access to the internet;
2. The Council used public money for a specific project, which then went over budget;
3. The contractors for the project used Mr X’s private access to gain access to the project site;
4. The Council did not grant him a council tax discount for the difficulties the project caused him;
5. The Council did not grant him a council tax discount for having a person living with him to provide care;
6. The Council issued a court summons for non-payment of council tax; and
7. The Council delayed responding to Mr X’s letters and did not pass a letter on to the officer he had addressed it to.

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 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 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)
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. For point 1, I understand Mr X’s frustration about the communication issues with the Council. However, the Council tried to contact Mr X by post and telephone and so on balance, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
8. For point 2, the Council confirmed it provided money towards the project but said a different organisation had responsibility for the project. The question of whether the Council spent too much money on this does not, in itself, affect Mr X more than it affects most residents and Council taxpayers in Cornwall. As paragraph 4 explained, we cannot investigate something that affects all or most people in the Council’s area.
9. For point 3, I appreciate Mr X’s frustration about the inconvenience of not being able to use the access to his property at times. However, a different organisation, not the Council, was responsible for the project. The other organisation is not a body we can investigate.. Mr X can complain to the responsible organisation directly if he wishes.
10. For points 4 and 5, Mr X has the right to appeal to the Council if he believes the decision was wrong. It is reasonable to expect him to do that. If Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s final position, he would then have the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
11. For point 6, the Council issued a summons to Mr X about a council tax payment that had not been paid. The matter was complicated by Mr X having decided to pay less council tax because of the issues he experienced during the project. Mr X tried to contact the Council before the summons was issued, but did not receive a response.
12. For point 7, the Council accepts its responses to Mr X were delayed on occasion. It also recognises that when it could not speak to him on the telephone, it should have followed this up with a letter. It also accepts the letter Mr X sent to a named person was not passed to that person.
13. If we investigated points 6 and 7, it is likely we would find the Council at fault, which caused Mr X injustice. This is because if the Council had efficiently responded to his attempts at contact, it could have been made clear to him that he could not lawfully withhold council tax payments. The Council may also have made its position on council tax discount/relief clearer sooner. So Mr X may have paid the outstanding amount sooner. This may have avoided the summons being issued, which means the Council’s actions have left some uncertainty about a missed opportunity to avoid the worry of receiving a summons.
14. The Council withdrew the summons. We welcome that, but we considered some more remedy was needed. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused to Mr X by making a symbolic payment to resolve the complaint early.

Agreed action

15. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will pay Mr X £150 within one month of today to put things right. This is to recognise the uncertainty about the possible missed opportunity, the distress and frustration at not receiving prompt responses, as well as the time and trouble for Mr X contacting the Council.

Final decision

16. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman