Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax. There is not enough evidence of a significant injustice which meets the threshold for our involvement and in any case, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council issued him contradictory council tax bills for the property of a deceased relative. He said the Council sent him a bill for around £4,000 when it identified the error.
2. Mr X said this caused him to suffer significant distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council issued him with two inaccurate council tax bills in 2024 and 2025. These bills said Mr X was in credit and did not owe anything.
7. However, the Council was aware of a change in circumstances relating to probate in December 2023. This meant council tax payments were due for the property.
8. When the Council identified this error, it amended the bill and sent Mr X an accurate one. Mr X complained about this bill, which was for around £4,000, despite previously being told no council tax payments were due.
9. Mr X does not dispute his liability in relation to the bill.
10. In its complaint response the Council took action to address its error. It apologised for the administrative error and for issuing inaccurate bills.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
12. Regardless of any potential fault, Mr X would still be liable for the council tax due. Therefore, while I acknowledge the distress reported by Mr X, I do not consider the injustice here to be significant enough to warrant our involvement.
13. Additionally, our role is to investigate complaints where fault has caused injustice and where we can realistically achieve a meaningful remedy, to put the person back in the position where they would have been, if but for the fault alleged.
14. Mr X would like the outstanding council tax to be written off and compensation issued. We could not tell the Council to write off the bill, and it has already apologised and offered to set up payment plans. There is nothing significantly more that we could achieve by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman