Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her single person council tax discount. Further investigation would not lead to a different or more meaningful outcome and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongfully removed the single person discount from her council tax bill in 2010. She said it also failed to notify her of this change.
2. Ms X said this caused her a significant financial loss. She wanted the Council either to refund her the discount backdated to 2010 or offset it against her future council tax payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Miss X says she noticed in 2026 that the Council had removed her single person discount from her council tax in 2010. She complained to the Council. In its response it explained she did not confirm she was still eligible for the discount in 2010 when it asked her to do so, so the discount was removed. It agreed to award Ms X a six year backdate of the discount and explained it could not provide more than this.
7. Ms X was unhappy with this and wanted the Council to backdate the discount to 2010.
8. So much time has passed since the removal of the discount in 2010, that an investigation is likely to be impeded by the passage of time.
9. The more time that passes between the events and a complaint, the more unlikely it is we can investigate them effectively, gather reliable evidence and reach a sound decision. In older cases we also may not be able to achieve a meaningful remedy because too many circumstances have changed. We are often unable to be able to show why events occurred or understand who was responsible.
10. Ms X said she became aware the discount had been removed around late 2025 or early 2026. I recognise Ms X says she did not know the discount had been removed, but she had the opportunity to check her annual council tax bills and raise this with the Council much sooner.
11. The Council explained why the discount had been removed and agreed to backdate the discount six years. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in this decision to justify investigating. Given the passage of time since removing the discount and the actions already taken by the Council, investigation would not add any meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add any meaningful outcome and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman