Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled band reduction for council tax. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council has taken suitable action regarding its delay, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council handling of her application for a disabled band reduction on her council tax. She says the Council delayed and it should apply the reduction because it had applied it at a previous address.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
4. 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).
5. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied in July 2025 it had not noted Mrs X’s email response in February 2025. It apologised for its delay and asked her for further information to support her claim. The Council explained the criteria to qualify in its final response. The Council has since refused Mrs X’s application.
9. Mrs X disputes the Council’s decision and says it did not explain what would meet the criteria. However, the Council has explained the criteria and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. That is the appropriate body to consider the matter.
10. The Council’s apology for its delay is a suitable remedy and there is no remaining injustice that warrants our involvement

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the Council’s decision. The Council has apologised for its delay and the injustice here is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman