Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in processing a change in relation to the complainant’s council tax. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says the Council sent her a council bill for a property she had left. She also says the Council downgraded her complaint. Ms X wants compensation for the impact on her well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X told the Council on 13 February that her tenancy was ending the following week. Ms X had paid the council tax until the end of February so she asked for a refund. The Council subsequently sent bills in relation to the old address. Ms X tried to resolve this but had to make a complaint because she was not making any progress and the stress was affecting her well-being.
5. Ms X made a complaint. The Council acknowledged it but, in error, referred to it as an enquiry. However, the response stated it was a reply to her complaint.
6. The Council apologised for the delays in updating her account. It provided an explanation for the delay and poor service. It confirmed it had issued a refund for £28 and said the account was closed with a zero balance. The Council apologised for referring to her complaint as an enquiry and said that the complaint had been incorrectly logged when it was set up. The Council said this did not disadvantage Ms X because, although it was incorrectly logged, it was treated as a complaint and she received a complaint response.
7. Ms X is dissatisfied with the reply. She says she had the refund but no apology and she wants proof the complaint was incorrectly logged due to a system error rather than human error. Ms X also requests compensation.
8. I can understand that what happened was stressful and time-consuming for Ms X, especially as she did all that was required to report the change in her circumstances. However, I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.
9. The Council acted appropriately by apologising for the delay, explaining the reasons for the delay, making the refund and confirming Ms X does not owe any council tax. It apologised for the complaint handling and explained why the complaint was downgraded. This was a satisfactory response which means there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. Ms X has not suffered a financial loss and has received apologies and explanations. The Council accepts it made an error with the way it acknowledged the complaint and it would not be a good use of resources to obtain additional information about the cause of the error.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman