Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has handled Ms X's mother's council tax liability. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by doing so.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly chased her now late mother for council tax while she was in cognitive decline and in and out of hospital.
2. Ms X also complains the Council has asked her to apply for a severe mental impairment discount while she is grieving.
3. Ms X would like the Council to waive all outstanding tax and apologise for distress caused to her and to her late mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X passed away in April 2025. The Council sent a final bill for outstanding Council tax when it was informed of her death.
8. Ms X complained the Council had pursued her mother for payment, sent automated reminders and a summons to her when she was in cognitive decline and in and out of hospital.
9. The Council explained the Council tax payments had been paid regularly until March 2024. After this date, the payments became erratic, so the Council followed its process of chasing for payment.
10. The Council says it was never notified that Ms X’s mother lacked capacity to deal with her finances, nor that it should correspond with any appointed person in her place.
11. Where someone has died, we will not normally seek a remedy for injustice caused to that person in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of, for example, the impact of poor care that person might have received while they were alive. This is because the person who received the poor care cannot benefit from such a payment.
12. The Council has said it will consider an application for a severe mental impairment discount in relation to the outstanding balance.
13. While it is understandably a difficult time for Ms X, we would not expect the Council to complete the application for her.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman