Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax liability. This is because there is no significant injustice outstanding and investigation would not change the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council overcharged him council tax for a property he lived in previously. He says he paid council tax to his landlord, but the Council unfairly said further council tax was due. The Council sent bills four years after he left and passed the account to its enforcement agent.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

3. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2024 regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied the Valuation Office Agency had banded Mr X’s flat because it was split into two flats. The Council received the VOA’s banding 18 months after Mr X had moved out. The Council sent bills to Mr X’s last known address which was his former address. However, the Council accepted it should have tried to trace Mr X’s address earlier. The Council apologised and recalled the account from its enforcement agent it also removed the summons costs it had added. The Council noted Mr X said he had paid his landlord more than the payments on the account. But the Council said this was a private matter Mr X should address to his former landlord.
7. The Council also accepted it did not progress a council tax liability appeal Mr X made in November 2024. It apologised for this and ensured the appeal was passed to the Valuation Tribunal.
8. The Valuation Tribunal dismissed Mr X’s appeal because it said it did not have jurisdiction to consider appeals about payments.
9. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is late because he complained in December 2025. This is more than 12 months after he first became aware of the matter. However, there are good reasons to exercise our discretion to consider this late complaint because there was a significant delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint.
10. However, we will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant injustice remaining that warrants our involvement. The Council has apologised for not tracing Mr X’s address earlier and removed the costs it had added. It has also apologised for not progressing his appeal. The Council actions have remedied the injustice here and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault regarding Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not properly calculated the outstanding amount. The Council has provided details of its calculation of the liability for the flat and the payments it received. It properly advised Mr X to contact his former landlord regarding payments not being passed on as this is a private matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice outstanding that warrants our involvement. There is not enough evidence of fault regarding the Council’s confirmation of the amount due to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman