Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about discretionary tax relief. This is because at our invitation, the Council has agreed to tell Mrs X about her appeal right. We consider this to be a suitable remedy. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to then appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council reversing its decision to give her discretionary council tax relief.

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. 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).
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X said that the Council did not input her husband’s earnings when it processed the application for discretionary Council tax relief. The Council then reversed its decision as the household income was higher than previously thought and told Mrs X that it was seeking for the Council tax to be repaid in full.
9. Mrs X believed the Council should reconsider its decision and said that the Council had made the error during the original application process.
10. The Council told Mrs X about her right to appeal the decision to the Valuation Tribunal and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal if she believed the Council’s decision was wrong.
11. However, the Council’s letter told Mrs X she had four months to appeal the decision, when it is in fact two months.
12. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for providing incorrect information to Mrs X, which resulted in injustice to Mrs X as she was not aware that she had to appeal within two months of the Council’s letter.
13. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused to Mrs X by reissuing the letter to her with the correct appeal timescale to resolve the complaint early.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. The Council has agreed to reissue the letter to Mrs X with the correct timescale provided to put things right. It is reasonable to expect that Mrs X will then use that right of appeal. The Council has also proposed that the letter template will be amended so that the correct timescale will be provided in future. We consider this to be a suitable and proportionate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to tell Mrs X about her appeal right by reissuing the letter with the correct appeal period. It will also update the letter template to include the correct appeal period. We consider this to be a suitable remedy. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to then appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman