Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax matter. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal the Council’s discretionary decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and there is no significant injustice from its handling of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council pursued council tax for his late relative’s home. He says he advised the Council probate had been granted. But it sent a very late bill after his relative’s estate was wound up. He complains the Council unfairly refused to make a discretionary reduction. It delayed responding and sent threatening enforcement letters while he was appealing.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council replied that
• Mr X advised one Council department that probate was granted but he had not notified its council tax department. Therefore, the Council did not revise the account until later, producing a backdated bill.
• It would not use its discretionary power to reduce the council tax in Mr X’s case. This was because it did not consider there was fault on its part. It gave details of the right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
• It apologised it had sent a reminder to Mr X about the council tax while it was considering his complaint. However, it said it was not required to hold recovery while an appeal or dispute was outstanding.
• It apologised its stage one complaint response was sent three days late.
8. The Council has explained Mr X was responsible for informing the council tax department that probate had been granted. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.
9. The injustice due to the Council sending a reminder before replying to his complaint or from its delay replying is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
10. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse a discretionary reduction in the council tax.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the Council decision not to make a discretionary reduction. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant investigation into other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman