Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax account. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax account and its failure to make reasonable adjustments in its communications with him, causing distress and anxiety.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council did not make reasonable adjustments in its communications with him. He asked for all communications by email or post. In its final complaint response the Council apologised, explained it had failed to add his adjustments to his new account, took action to rectify this and confirmed further communication would be by email or post. I consider the Council provided a suitable remedy and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X complained the Council did not send an accessible council tax bill to him or a breakdown of charges. In its final complaint response the Council confirmed it had issued a new bill by post. It also provided a breakdown of charges. I consider the Council provided a suitable remedy and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
9. Mr X complained the Council did not involve a certain officer in the handling of his complaints as requested. In its final complaint response the Council explained it was not always possible to allocate the same officer to a complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
10. Following the Council’s final response, Mr X told us he wanted his council tax bills sent by email and the Council had not actioned this. However, I note the Council was satisfied Mr X could access bills by post. As the Council took account of Mr X’s needs and its duty to make adjustments, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making. Further, as it appears Mr X can access written information sent by post, there is no significant injustice.
11. It is not proportionate to look at Mr X’s further complaints about the complaint handling process when we are not investigating the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman