Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council processed a council tax refund and responded to his requests for assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to address his requests for support and delayed sending him a council tax refund. Mr X stated the Council’s actions had impacted negatively on his health and he feels overwhelmed. He would like the Council to provide him with support and compensation.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

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. Mr X informed the Council of his student status in summer 2025.
6. In its complaint response, the Council stated that once it had received notice of Mr X’s student status, it updated records and issued Mr X with a council tax refund two weeks later. We do not consider that a delay. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
7. Mr X complained to the Council that it failed to provide him with support as a vulnerable individual. Emails between Mr X and the Council show the Council signposted Mr X to where he might access support about benefits and housing. I am satisfied the Council did respond to Mr X’s request for support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that it failed to respond to his complaint within its guidelines for complaint responses. The Council apologised for the delay within its stage 2 complaint response to Mr X. This apology is appropriate and remedies any injustice caused to Mr X for the delayed stage 1 complaint response. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman