Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council Tax billing because Mr Y could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal Service and it was reasonable to expect him to do so. Also, because an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the calculations and overall charge on his Council Tax bill. He says the Council overcharged him.
2. Mr Y also complains about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against him, for unpaid historic Council Tax bills.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
6. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr Y contacted the Council about his Council Tax bill. The Council engaged in many discussions with Mr Y, explaining the calculations on his bill. The Council accepted that some bills lacked clarity, but confirmed the amount owed on Mr Y’s account.
10. There was a delay in the Council pursuing debt owed on Mr Y’s historic bills. However, it had a right to pursue this debt and was in ongoing correspondence with him about the debt for a long period before taking action to recover the outstanding amount.
11. The Council issued Council Tax demands to Mr Y. When the debt remained unpaid, it passed the debt to enforcement officers. Instigating enforcement action did incur additional fees, but the Council was clear about these fees in its communications with Mr Y. The Council had a right to do this to restore the debt it was owed, and I am satisfied it followed the correct process before starting enforcement action.
12. If Mr Y had wanted to challenge the Council’s decision regarding his liability for Council Tax, he had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service. As it was reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right of appeal, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
13. The Council accepts that there were issues in how it handled Mr Y’s Council Tax account. It apologised to Mr Y and offered him £200 compensation to remedy this.
14. I understand Mr Y wants the Council to offer him more compensation. We do not make recommendations for organisations to pay compensation. Where an individual has suffered injustice because of an organisation’s actions, we may suggest a remedy. We publish guidance on remedies, and I am satisfied that the Council has sufficiently remedied the injustice experienced by Mr Y in line with our guidance.
15. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response, and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
16. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because he could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal Service and it was reasonable to expect him to do so. Also, because an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman