Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and complaint handling. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council may have received council tax payments twice for the same period for a property he owns, because his tenant may have paid. He says the Council did not adequately explain why it charged him council tax, and failed to issue a refund when he requested it. He also complains the Council’s communications and complaint handling were poor.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied that if the tenant had paid for the same period as Mr X, the Council would refund payments if they had overpaid. It said it could not give Mr X information about the tenant’s account as data protection rules did not permit this. The Council explained why Mr X was liable for council tax after the tenant left and the reason for an outstanding balance. The Council explained how it had responded to Mr X’s queries and complaints. The Council had apologised for a slight delay in replying to Mr X’s early queries. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and therefore no financial compensation was due.
6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council responded to Mr X’s queries and provided a clear explanation why he was liable, the amounts due, and why it could not give information about his tenant’s payments. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding its complaint responses, or the regarding the poor communication issues Mr X complains about.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed responding to his queries from February 2025. While the Council confirmed there was a delay from late February 2025 to 23 April 2025 in responding, we do not consider there is significant injustice from this that warrants investigation. I have also noted the Council apologised for its delay which is what we would expect it to do. If we were to investigate, we would likely not make further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman