Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax discount. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and the Council has taken suitable action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed for seven weeks in applying an uninhabitable council tax exemption for his property. The Council said the officer Mr X contacted had left. Mr X says the Council gave the same reason for delay several years earlier. This has caused him frustration and distress.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council said there was delay in applying the discount as an officer had left. It apologised for this and applied a 50% uninhabitable reduction back to June 2025.
6. Mr X complained further the Council used the same excuse five years earlier when he made a different application. He asked for information about its internal processes and how it handled staff leaving. In his view there was systemic fault.
7. In its final response the Council said it could not give specific information about staff leaving and its internal processes. However, it said the officer was temporary and when permanent staff left, emails were redirected to another officer. It said it had now ensured temporary staff’s email accounts were handled like permanent staff when they left, so that there was a proper handover.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice to Mr X due to the seven weeks the Council took to apply the discount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
9. The Council has apologised as Mr X requested in his complaint, and it has taken steps to prevent recurrence. Therefore, as the Council has taken appropriate steps remedy the injustice due to its fault, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice due to the Council’s delay. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman