Summary: We upheld Mr X‘s complaint about the Council failing to refund a council tax overpayment. This is because the Council has since refunded the outstanding credit, updated its website, and agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to fully refund an overpayment he made to his council tax account. He says despite providing the required proof and authorisations, the Council withheld part of the overpayment and transferred it towards an unbilled council tax year. He says the Council’s proof requests went beyond its published policy, and it failed to clearly communicate its requirements from the start. Mr X says the situation impacted his finances and caused avoidable distress. He wants the Council to apologise, refund the outstanding amount, provide compensation, and apply service improvements to align practice with its published policy.

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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing injustice to Mr X. The evidence suggests he provided proof of payment with written authority from the joint account holder. This appeared to satisfy the requirements set out on the Council's website. However, the Council applied extra evidential requirements that were not reflected in its published guidance. The Council also accepted it did not clearly explain its evidential requirements to Mr X from the outset. In addition, it transferred the remaining credit balance to a future, unbilled council tax year while Mr X's refund request remained in dispute.
6. The Council has since refunded the outstanding credit to Mr X and made the necessary changes to its website to reflect the evidence it requires before processing refund requests. While these actions address the substantive issue and reduce the risk of similar problems affecting others, they did not remedy the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused to Mr X. We therefore asked the Council to consider a remedy for the remaining injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

7. To remedy the injustice caused, within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of his refund request. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended.
• Make a symbolic payment of £100 to Mr X for the time, trouble and avoidable distress caused.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We have upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve it early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman