Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a change in council tax liability. This is because the injustice from the Council’s fault is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council took five months to revise their council tax liability when Mrs X moved in. It then sent a high bill payable over a short period. This has caused them anxiety and financial hardship.

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, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainants. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied that there was delay on its part from August to December 2025 in revising liability to Mrs X’s name. It apologised for this and for the inconvenience caused. It noted Mrs X had asked in August whether the council tax would be reduced to 50% due to their circumstances. The Council advised Mrs X it had applied a 25% discount, but said she was not entitled to a carer discount which would have reduced the council tax by a further 25%.
7. The Council said its bill in December 2025 gave two instalments because the council tax due was payable within the council tax year. However, it offered to change the instalments from two to three to assist Mrs X.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because while there was a four month delay by the Council in revising liability, the injustice from this is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The amount of council tax due was high, but it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to set aside money to pay for this, as she was aware she would need to pay at least 50%. In addition, the Council has apologised for its delay and offered a longer period to make payment. This is a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and the remedy we would likely recommend if the Council had not offered it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman