Summary: We have found fault causing injustice. The Council delayed and mishandled Mr X’s Single Person Discount application, proceeded to summons while eligibility for a backdated discount was unresolved, and communicated inconsistently, giving incorrect information about court costs and failing to follow recorded communication preferences. This caused avoidable distress and time and trouble, and the Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed processing a Single Person Discount application he submitted in March 2024. He says the Council’s delay resulted in a court summons being issued and costs wrongly added to his council tax account, despite him not owing the amount pursued. Mr X also complains about poor communication, including failure to follow his contact preferences, and says the Council has not explained or reviewed the court costs despite his requests.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have not investigated

4. Mr X raised additional concerns about the Council’s conduct between February and June 2025. These include a second Magistrates’ Court summons issued after he brought the original complaint to the Ombudsman, continued council tax recovery action despite the live investigation, and an alleged overpayment which he says the Council has not refunded.
5. These matters were not part of the original complaint, were not addressed in the Council’s complaint responses, and fall outside the scope of my current investigation. Considering them would require new enquiries and would expand the investigation beyond its original remit.
6. I have therefore not investigated these matters. Mr X may raise them formally with the Council under its complaints process. If he remains dissatisfied after receiving a final response, he may bring a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Single Person Discount (SPD)

9. Council Tax discounts are set by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA 1992). Where only one adult is resident (ignoring any “disregarded” persons), a 25% discount applies. (LGFA 1992, s11.)
10. There is no fixed statutory timescale to process an SPD application. However, authorities are expected to consider and determine applications within a reasonable time and to tell the applicant promptly if further information is needed, as part of general public law fairness and good administrative practice.

Summons, liability orders and costs

11. If council tax is unpaid after a reminder/final notice, the billing authority may apply to the magistrates’ court for a summons and, at the hearing, seek a liability order. (Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (CT(A&E) Regs), reg 33 and reg 34.)
12. Where a liability order is made, the court may order the debtor to pay the authority’s costs reasonably incurred in obtaining the order. (CT(A&E) Regs, reg 34(7).) Authorities should therefore review costs where later decisions (e.g. backdated discounts) extinguish the underlying liability or show that escalation was not proportionate.

Good administrative practice and remedy

13. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice expect bodies to act fairly and proportionately, be open and accountable, put things right, and seek continuous improvement. In this particular case, in practice we would expect this to mean:
• Promptly acknowledging and assessing discount applications;
• Explaining without delay if a form is incomplete/invalid and what is needed;
• Pausing or deferring recovery action while a pending decision may materially affect liability; and
• Clearly notifying taxpayers when recovery action is cancelled or adjusted.

Back to top

What happened

14. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
15. In September 2023, the Council received a tenant vacation notice, and it applied an empty property discount to the Council Tax account from September 2023. Mr X subsequently became liable for Council Tax at the property.
16. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about council tax liability and submitted a complaint. Toward the end of January 2024, the Council sent Mr X a Single Person Discount (SPD) application form by both email and post. Mr X says he submitted a completed SPD form with a covering letter dated early March 2024.
17. The Council received a letter from Mr X dated 29 March 2024 on 9 April 2024. The letter included a completed SPD form. The Council did not accept this version due to redactions and alterations, but it did not inform Mr X of this at the time. In late April 2024, the Council received a further letter from Mr X enclosing a photocopy of the same SPD form previously submitted. The Council accepted this version.
18. In mid-May 2024, the Council issued a summons for Mr X’s 2023/24 Council Tax account for £115.15 in alleged arrears. The summons included additional court costs of £101.50. In late May 2024, the Council applied SPD to Mr X’s account, backdated to 24 September 2023. This reduced the balance to nil.
19. Mr X continued to dispute his liability and the costs. The Council’s correspondence in August 2024 stated that no court costs had been added to his account.
20. Mr X made multiple written complaints to the Council and asked for a final response. The Council responded to earlier complaints in January and February 2024 but did not issue a final complaint response addressing the court costs.

Response to my enquiries:

21. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council:
• Said it had withdrawn the £101.50 court costs and reallocated the amount to reduce arrears on Mr X’s 2024/25 account. It explained that this was because SPD should have been applied on 24 April 2024, when Mr X’s letter dated 29 March 2024 was processed.
• Confirmed Mr X’s preference to be contacted by letter only, but says some communication was sent by email, either in response to emails from Mr X or in an attempt to progress the matter.
• Accepted that its August 2024 correspondence incorrectly stated no court costs had been applied to Mr X’s account. It acknowledged this was an error.
• Confirmed that it did not notify Mr X directly that recovery action had been cancelled following the SPD award. It said the adjusted bill issued in May 2024, showing a nil balance, should have made this clear.
• Said it had considered whether to withdraw the court costs and decided to do so in this case as SPD should have been applied earlier. It said its policy is to withdraw costs where they were not properly incurred, but not where they were correctly applied at the time.

Back to top

Analysis

22. The Council was responsible for processing Mr X’s Single Person Discount (SPD) application promptly and telling him without delay if further information was needed.
23. The Council sent an SPD form in late January 2024. It received a completed form with Mr X’s letter dated 29 March 2024 on 9 April 2024 and considered that version too heavily redacted to accept. It did not, however, inform Mr X at the time that the form was not accepted or explain what was required. In late April 2024, Mr X resubmitted a photocopy of the same form and the Council accepted this version without further issue. SPD was then applied in late May 2024 and backdated to September 2023.
24. The Council’s account contains an inconsistency. It says the documents received in early April 2024 were too heavily redacted to accept, yet it also says SPD should have been applied from 24 April 2024 when that same correspondence was processed. Taken together, this implies that by 24 April the Council either held enough information from the 29 March submission and its own records to award SPD, or it should at least have paused recovery and sought any missing details immediately.
25. On balance, I treat the Council’s later concession, that SPD should have been applied on 24 April, as the more reliable position. Despite accepting it had enough information by 24 April to apply SPD, it did not do so until 27 May.
26. The avoidable delay meant Mr X’s account continued to show arrears into mid-May 2024, which contributed to escalation, including the issuing of a summons. The lack of timely explanation also caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble in resubmitting documents and chasing updates. Taking these factors together, I consider there was administrative fault in the handling of the SPD application which caused Mr X injustice.

Court costs and recovery action

27. My analysis of court costs and recovery concerns the 2023/24 summons issued in May 2024 and the associated £101.50 costs.
28. For 2023/24, the Council issued a summons on 16 May 2024 for £115.15 and added £101.50 in costs. Nine days later, on 27 May 2024, it applied SPD backdated to 24 September 2023, reducing the 2023/24 balance to nil. The Council now accepts SPD should have been applied on 24 April 2024 when it processed Mr X’s 29 March correspondence. In those circumstances, it would have been reasonable to pause recovery action while the discount position was clarified. Proceeding to summons when eligibility for a backdated discount was unresolved was not a proportionate step and reflects poor administrative judgment. Although the Council was entitled in principle to seek a liability order under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, it also had a duty to act fairly, to avoid unnecessary escalation where its own processing delay was material, and to exercise discretion on costs.
29. The Council’s Stage 2 complaint response pre-dated the May 2024 summons and explained the Council’s view that actions to that point were in line with legislation, that no SPD form had then been received, and that correspondence preferences would be honoured. Once SPD was applied and the 2023/24 balance was reduced to nil, the Council should have reviewed whether costs remained appropriate. Instead, its August 2024 letter incorrectly told Mr X that no costs had been applied, and the £101.50 was only withdrawn in June 2025 following our enquiries. This compounded avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble for Mr X.
30. Taking these factors together, I find fault in the handling of 2023/24 recovery, specifically issuing a summons while the SPD decision should already have been made or, at minimum, held in abeyance; failing to review and withdraw costs promptly once SPD was applied; and providing incorrect information about the existence of costs. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and unnecessary effort to challenge the position. I note separately that the Council has since withdrawn the £101.50 and explained it did so because SPD should have been applied in April 2024; that is an appropriate step but was taken late and only after Ombudsman involvement.
31. On this point, I find fault causing injustice. While the Council has now withdrawn the £101.50 costs, this only partly remedies the matter. Mr X experienced avoidable distress and time and trouble over a prolonged period, which remains unremedied and warrants a further remedy.

Communication and complaint handling

32. The Council’s confirmed that Mr X’s contact preference in 2024 was “letter only”. Despite this, some emails were sent to him. The Council says these were either in response to Mr X’s emails or to expedite matters, and it apologised at Stage 2 for the January 2024 email. While limited email contact in direct reply to an email from Mr X may be understandable, the recorded preference should have been followed as the default if this was an agreed contact preference.
33. The Council did not tell Mr X directly that recovery action for 2023/24 had been cancelled following the SPD award. It relied on an adjusted bill showing a nil balance. Given enforcement action had already progressed to summons, the Council should have given a clear notification that recovery was no longer being pursued. The absence of such notice risked confusion and avoidable contact from Mr X to establish the position.
34. There were also inaccuracies and gaps in communication. In August 2024 the Council stated that no court costs had been applied, which it now accepts was incorrect. This misinformation prolonged uncertainty about the status of costs and contributed to Mr X’s time and trouble in pursuing clarification.
35. In complaint handling, the Council issued responses in January and February 2024 that addressed matters then in dispute and included signposting to the Ombudsman. However, once SPD was applied and the May 2024 summons had added costs, the Council did not provide a further complaint response that engaged with the new issue or explained its position on costs. Its complaint handling therefore did not keep pace with developments in the case, leaving Mr X to seek repeated updates and escalation.
36. Mr X complained that the Council had failed to signpost to the Ombudsman, but in its complaint response, we can see evidence that it did signpost to the Ombudsman.
37. Taking these points together, I find fault in the Council’s communication and complaint handling. The failures to follow the recorded contact preference, to correct inaccurate information promptly, and to address the evolving complaint about court costs caused Mr X avoidable frustration and time and trouble. A remedy is warranted for this injustice.

Back to top

Action

38. To prevent similar occurrences, and remedy injustice in this complaint, the Council will:
1. Send Mr X a written apology acknowledging the identified faults. The apology should be in line with our published guidance on remedies.
2. Pay Mr X £250 to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused by the Council’s handling over a prolonged period.
3. Provide Mr X with a clear statement showing the 2023/24 balance at £0, confirming the withdrawal of the £101.50 costs, and setting out how any transfers or adjustments have been applied, in plain language.
4. Review and, where necessary, update its guidance and procedures to ensure recovery action is paused while discount/exemption applications are under consideration, that any court costs are reviewed promptly where later decisions extinguish or reduce liability, and that these steps are clearly communicated to taxpayers.
39. The Council will complete action points a-c within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and point d within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council delayed and mishandled Mr X’s Single Person Discount application, proceeded to summons while eligibility for a backdated discount was unresolved, and communicated inconsistently, giving incorrect information about court costs and failing to follow recorded communication preferences. This caused avoidable distress and time and trouble, and the Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman