Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the council’s handling of his council tax discount. This is because, at our invitation, the Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X. We consider this a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly charged him £39.67 council tax for 15 July to 22 July 2024 despite his student status. He says the Council admitted fault, but his account still shows a liability, and the Council threatened him with court action.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing Mr X injustice because:
1. The Council did not award Mr X a council tax exemption until its final response to his complaint because until then it had failed properly to consider which exemption Mr X might be eligible for.
2. The Council told Mr X on 12 May 2025 he was exempt from council tax and that £39.67 had been removed from his council tax bill. However, the £39.67 was not removed when Mr X checked his online account. After we queried the matter, the Council told us on 16 September 2025 that the £39.67 had been removed and no court summons had been issued. However, the £39.67 had not been removed and four days earlier the Council had issued a court summons for the £39.67 plus £79.50 court costs.
6. The Council has now said it has cancelled the summons and removed the £39.67 plus court costs from Mr X’s council tax account. However, an investigation by us would be likely to find this did not fully remedy Mr X’s avoidable worry, time and effort.
7. We therefore invited the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions.

Back to top

Agreed actions

8. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will do the following to put things right:
1. Confirm, with documentary evidence, the debt and associated court costs have been removed from the account.
2. Confirm, with documentary evidence, that the council has withdrawn the court summons and will not seek a court order against the complainant.
3. Pay Mr X £150 to recognise his avoidable worry, time and effort.
4. Show us it has improved its procedure to ensure that when it says it has removed a debt from a council tax account, it has done so and checked this.
9. The Council should complete points a), b) and c) within one month of today and point d) within two months of today.
10. Mr X asked for a different remedy. He said £150 is not enough to recognise his distress and the time and effort caused by the Council’s fault. I have considered this but do not agree. The £150 is a symbolic amount in line with our published Guidance on Remedies and recognises the injustice Mr X experienced. It is not intended as compensation such as a court might award. The Council has also agreed to act to reduce the chance of a recurrence. I am therefore satisfied the agreed remedy is proportionate to the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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