Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax. This is because most of the complaint is late. The injustice from the Council’s fault in more recent matters is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X could appeal the liability and discount decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has not properly billed his council tax. He complains about two addresses from 2015 to 2021.He says he was not liable for the periods stated and student discounts should have applied. He says the Council is unfairly seeking recovery from him when other parties should be liable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (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.

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. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied giving details of the liability for each property. It said it sent bills to Mr X’s last known address because he did not give a forwarding address. It said:
• It should not have asked for tenancy agreement evidence as it already had this.
• It should have made Mr X’s step parent liable, in addition to Mr X. It apologised and said it had now done this.
• It agreed to accept student discount evidence for the majority of the period but this did not change the amount due because there were three adult residents.
• It had withdrawn the account from its enforcement agent due to the liability error.
• Mr X was liable and it was correct to pursue recovery from him. It had taken account of one former liable party having an IVA. This meant it could not recover from them.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax liability from 2015 to 2024. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for this.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the matter from October 2024. The Council accepted it should have made another party liable, and it asked for unnecessary evidence. However, the injustice due to the Council’s fault is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The Council has also withdrawn recovery action and is prepared to consider an arrangement.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal or to have appealed the Council’s decisions about liability and council tax discounts to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the majority of it is late. There is not enough injustice to warrant investigation of more recent matters. Mr X could have appealed the Council’s liability and discount decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman