Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council applied its Council Tax Reduction policy. It would be reasonable for Miss X to have used her appeal right to the Valuation Tribunal and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has treated the Universal Credit (UC) payments she receives as income for Council Tax Reduction (CTR) purposes. She says before it became UC her disability benefits were never taken into account. She says the situation has caused her financial and physical hardship. Miss X says the Council failed to consider the impact on people with disabilities. She wants the Council to pay back the additional amount she has paid in council tax since its policy changed and give her exemption status going forward.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X complained the Council's CTR policy does not properly take account of residents with disabilities. She said the Council treats her UC as income when calculating her CTR. Before she claimed UC, she received separate disability benefits which were not treated in the same way. She said she must use part of her benefits to pay council tax, causing financial hardship and affecting her health.
10. The Council introduced its new CTR policy following consultation with residents and stakeholders. The Council also completed an Equality Impact Assessment before adopting the scheme. The scheme provides that UC is treated as income when calculating entitlement to CTR and includes measures intended to mitigate the impact on affected residents with protected characteristics.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The Council considered the concerns Miss X raised and explained the reasons for its position. It also followed the proper process when introducing its CTR policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to justify an investigation
12. Miss X also said she should be exempt from council tax and disagrees with the Council's assessment of her liability. Where a person disputes their entitlement to CTR or the amount of council tax they are liable to pay, they have a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. I see no reason why it was or is unreasonable for Miss X to use that right.
13. Miss X complained about financial and physical hardship. The Council signposted Miss X to its discretionary support schemes and to external organisations that may be able to help.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for Miss X to have used her appeal right to the Valuation Tribunal. There is also not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman