Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council Tax billing and a warning issued by the Council over his communications with it. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice or fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued him with several incorrect Council Tax bills before sending him the correct one. He says it then refused to deal with his complaint, instead warning him about how he communicated with it.
2. Mr X says he wasted a morning resolving the Council Tax billing issues. He also says the Council issued the unreasonable behaviour warning because he took legal proceedings against it earlier and then withdrew them. He says this is wrong as he has a right to bring legal action if he wishes.
3. He wants the Council to withdraw the warning and respond formally to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a Council Tax bill for 2025/26. He was then issued with Council Tax reduction, backdated to April 2024. This meant he was due a refund for the 2024/25 year. The Council also issued a revised Council Tax bill for 2025/26 taking the Council Tax reduction into account. All of this generated several bills which the Council had a duty to send Mr X.
8. Mr X complained and threatened legal action. The Council responded and explained why it had sent him several bills. It confirmed what he owed. It also said that his previous actions, which included threats and insults constituted unreasonable behaviour. It asked Mr X to modify his behaviour.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council had a duty to issue revised Council Tax bills following Mr X’s award of Council Tax reduction. The Council also provided him with a clear explanation of its calculations when he complained. Mr X said it took him half a day to resolve what he owed the Council. This is not sufficient injustice to investigate his complaint.
10. The Council has issued Mr X with a warning letter about his behaviour and communications. It has explained why it has done so. It has not said he cannot complain but has asked he modify his behaviour. There is no evidence of fault in its actions. At this stage it has not invoked its unreasonable complainant policy but it is entitled to keep this decision under review.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman