Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax handling. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and there no outstanding significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has mishandled his council tax account after he sold his previous property. He told the Council several times he had moved, but it took nearly 7 weeks to correct. The Council did not apply a single person discount. It asked for £48 more in instalments than the total amount billed. He said the Council responses and complaint handling were poor. The Council sent an incorrect reminder regarding his previous address. This caused stress for him and his partner. He asks for a gesture of goodwill in addition to the Council’s apologies.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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).
3. 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)).
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied that
• it had issued a bill without a single person discount and Mr X’s name was misspelt because it was based on information the former owner gave.
• It applied the single person discount to the new account within 3 weeks.
• It had not linked his old and new address and so had not closed the old account. This led to a reminder. It apologised for the delay and the distress due to the reminder.
• Its instalments for the new address did not reflect a transferred credit of £48. It apologised for this.
9. The Council’s final response apologised further but did not agree to Mr X’s request for a gesture of goodwill.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s apology is a suitable remedy in view of the injustice caused here. There is no significant injustice outstanding that would justify investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. There is no significant injustice remaining that would justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman