Summary: Ms X complained about the increase in her council tax bill when the Council decided to claw-back overpaid council tax support and benefit after it granted her application for a retrospective council tax discount, and that it had poor communication when she raised concerns, which caused significant distress. The law says we cannot investigate the Council’s decisions that led to the increase in her council tax bill because we have decided it is reasonable for her to have appealed to the Tribunal, and we do not find the Council at fault for its communication.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council handled her council tax after it granted her application for a discount due to her severe mental impairment (SMI). In particular she complains the Council:
1. Decided to claw-back council tax support and council tax benefit from 2009 after it granted her SMI discount.
2. Had poor communication when it repeatedly told her to disregard the bills it sent to her, and did not provide clear written information in response to her concerns.
2. She said this has caused her significant distress and sleepless nights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
7. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated from June 2024, when the Council agreed to apply the SMI discount to Ms X’s council tax account, backdated to 2009. I have investigated until 29 May 2025 when Ms X complained to us.
10. I have not investigated any matters before 29 May 2024. This is because they happened more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us and I have decided there are no good reasons why Ms X could not have complained to us about them sooner. I have not investigated a complaint Ms X raised about a new application for council tax support that the Council refused in August 2025. This is because it is a new matter that happened after Ms X complained to us, and I have decided the Council should have the opportunity to respond to her complaint before we consider whether to investigate it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms 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

Legal Framework

Council tax discounts for severely mentally impaired people.

13. People might be able to apply for a discount on their council tax bill if they or someone they live with is severely mentally impaired. Applicants need to:

• get a certificate to say they are severely mentally impaired from a medical professional, such as a GP.
• prove their eligibility for certain benefits.

14. If a person qualifies as severely mentally impaired, the level of discount depends on whether different circumstances apply.

Council tax benefit, council tax support and ‘overpayments’

15. Council tax benefit (CTB) was an income related benefit which could be claimed by an eligible individual who was liable to pay council tax in respect of their sole or main residence.
16. CTB was a national benefit with policy and rules set by Central Government but administered by local authorities.
17. CTB was abolished in April 2013 when it was replaced by council tax reduction (CTR) also known as council tax support (CTS).
18. CTR is a discount, not a benefit. It reduces the amount of council tax a person has to pay.
19. If a council gives someone too much CTR it can reduce the CTR and increase how much council tax the person owes. We call these changes ‘CTR reversals’ (sometimes called ‘overpayments’).
20. If the council’s CTR Scheme says how it deals with challenges to reversals a claimant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. If the scheme does not say how the council will deal with CTR reversals, the claimant cannot appeal.

The Council’s CTR Scheme (CTRS)

21. In this case the Council’s CTR scheme says how it deals with challenges to CTR overpayments.
22. It says of overpayments: “Retrospective changes in circumstances will result in a debit or credit to the claimant’s CTAX (council tax) account in all circumstances, thereby increasing or reducing the amount of council tax due.” (paragraph 19.1)
23. It says of appeals: “CTRS claimants can dispute a decision concerning the assessment of their CTRS. In the first instance an internal review or reconsideration will be carried out; if the claimant still wishes to challenge the decision, an appeal must be lodged by the Claimant themselves with the independent Valuation Office. Part 2 of Schedule 7 of the 2012 Prescribed Regulations regarding the procedure by which a person may appeal against certain decisions of the Council in relation to the CTRS shall apply.” (Paragraph 21.1)

What happened

24. This is a summary of the key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened. I have provided more information on some of the events in the analysis section.
25. Ms X applied to the Council for a discount to her council tax bill because she was severely mentally impaired. I shall refer to this as her SMI discount. Ms X wanted her SMI discount to be backdated.
26. The Council approved her application and initially agreed to backdate her SMI discount to 2013.
27. In June 2024 Ms X lodged an appeal with the Tribunal. This was because she thought the SMI discount should have been backdated to 2008.
28. In July the Council considered Ms X’s appeal to the Tribunal and agreed to backdate her SMI discount to 2009. It wrote to her and said she should expect a revised council tax statement because she had received CTS during the period of her SMI discount, and it had to be adjusted.
29. In November the Council sent Ms X decision notices explaining it had decided Ms X had been overpaid CTB between 2009 and 2013. It explained she could appeal the decision if she thought it was wrong. It also sent Ms X a bill that listed the CTB overpayments, and CTS overpayments from 2013 to 2024, that it had decided to claw-back. It listed the total money she owed which was higher than the previous bill.
30. At the end of November Ms X raised a formal complaint because she disagreed with the bill.
31. The Council responded 10 working days later in early December. It provided a short summary of the reason for the increase in her bill. It said she had a statutory right to appeal the bill and provided a link to its website to start the process. A person phoned the Council on Ms X’s behalf the same day. The Council’s record of the call states the person thought the recalculation was incorrect and took too long.
32. Ms X and a person on her behalf spoke to the Council in March and May 2025. They raised further concerns about the council tax bill.
33. There is no record Ms X appealed her council tax bill using the Council process or directly to the Tribunal.
34. Ms X complained to us in May 2025.

Analysis

35. I address each part of Ms X’s complaint in order below.

a) Complaint the Council decided to claw-back council tax support and council tax benefit.

36. Ms X applied for the SMI discount, and it was backdated to 2009 after she appealed to the Tribunal. This caused a retrospective change of circumstances that led to the Council’s decision she had received CTB and CTS overpayments. This in turn led to its decision to claw-back those overpayments via increased council tax bills.
37. The Council’s CTR Scheme says how it deals with CTR overpayments and challenges to its decisions, as laid out in paragraphs 21 to 23. This means Ms X had the right to appeal to the Tribunal about this part of her complaint as laid out in paragraph 20.
38. Ms X did not appeal to the Tribunal. I have considered whether it is unreasonable to expect Ms X to have used her right to appeal.
39. I note the Council gave Ms X information regarding her right to appeal, and the way to make that appeal using its own process, in its decision notices of November 2024, subsequent bills summarising the overpayments, and its stage one complaint response of December 2024.
40. I also note Ms X knew of the Tribunal because she had previously appealed to it in June 2024 about the backdated start of her SMI discount.
41. I acknowledge Ms X says the Council told her to disregard her bills during telephone calls. However, I have seen no evidence the Council said that to her. Based on the evidence I have seen I find it more likely than not that the Council did not tell Ms X to disregard her bills.
42. Based on the evidence above I do not find it unreasonable to expect Ms X to have used her right to appeal to the Tribunal. I therefore cannot investigate the Council’s decision to claw-back CTS and CTB, and the resulting council tax bill. This is because the law says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter, and we do not decide it is unreasonable to expect them to use that right, as laid out in paragraph 5.

b) Complaint the Council had poor communication.

43. I have considered the Council’s case notes that include notes of the telephone calls during the period I investigated.
44. Ms X said the Council told her in telephone calls to disregard the bills it sent to her. I can see no record it said that. I acknowledge the Council might not have kept a record of all telephone calls with Ms X. However, we make findings based on all available evidence. On the evidence I have seen I do not find the Council told Ms X to disregard the bills.
45. I have considered the written information the Council provided to Ms X.
46. The Council wrote to Ms X in July and told her to expect a revised council tax statement following her application and appeal for her SMI discount to be backdated to 2009. It sent her decision notices and a bill in November that detailed the CTB and CTS overpayments it had decided to claw-back. These were itemised by year. The Council sent Ms X its stage one response within 10 working days of her complaint. It explained her revised tax bill was due to overpaid CTS following her award of backdated SMI. It also explained Ms X had a statutory right of appeal that specifically exists so that customers can challenge decisions and provided a link to its website to do so.
47. Based on the evidence I do not find the Council provided information that fell below an adequate level of clarity and detail in response to Ms X’s concerns.
48. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault for this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman