Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax liability decision. This is because Ms X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Part of the complaint is premature. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in other matters to warrant investigation.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. 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).
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
6. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. This includes disability.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms X complained the Council refused to make her lodger liable for council tax. She had previously had a council tax discount and had nothing to pay. But she says the Council gave inconsistent advice and now said that her new lodger could not be liable. This led to a year’s backdated council tax bill.
10. Ms X also claimed a discretionary reduction in the council tax because of the Council’s backdated bill. However, the Council refused this because it said Ms X had not responded to all its information requests and there were inconsistencies in the information she provided.
11. Ms X believes that the Council should not have advised her to apply as she did not meet the criteria.
12. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to revise the council tax liability, making her liable. However, Ms X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect her to do this.
13. Ms X can also appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the Council’s decision to refuse a discretionary reduction. It is reasonable to expect her to do this.
14. Ms X complains the Council gave inconsistent advice. However, the Council revised its position about liability based on new information it received. Ms X said the Council should not have advised her to claim a discretionary reduction. Ms X made a request for a discretionary reduction. The Council would not have known if she was entitled until it considered her claim and the circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault here by the Council to warrant investigation.
15. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. The Council responded to Ms X’s contact regarding difficulty paying and the impact on her. It offred a special payment arrangement. I have not seen evidence Ms X requested reasonable adjustments. I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council in its treatment of Ms X to warrant investigation.
16. Part of Ms X’s complaint set out in paragraph 2 is premature as it was made after Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025 and the Council has not had an opportunity to consider it though its complaint procedure. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the Council and for it to respond according to its procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding council tax liability. Part of the complaint is premature as the Council has not had an opportunity to consider it. There is insufficient evidence of fault in other matters to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman