Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about remarks made by the Council in a submission to the Valuation Tribunal. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council had caused the complainant injustice that would justify his involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council delayed responding to a complaint he made in February 2018. The complaint was about comments in papers for a Valuation Tribunal that Mr B says were inaccurate and derogatory.

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. It says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to a tribunal; we have no discretion in this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information including its replies to Mr B’s concerns.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

6. Mr B appealed to the Valuation Tribunal against a decision by the Council on his entitlement to council tax reduction.
7. The Council submitted papers to the Valuation Tribunal which included a comment about Mr B which he says was inaccurate and defamatory. He complained to the Council by email about this in February 2018.
8. The Valuation Tribunal considered Mr B’s appeal in March 2018 and upheld it. The Tribunal’s decision made no reference to the Council’s’ comments about Mr B.
9. Mr B complained to us in February 2019 that the Council had not responded to the complaint he made in February 2018. We referred the matter back to the Council. It sent its Stage 1 response to Mr B in May 2019 and its final response in June 2019.
10. The Council said it had not initially treated Mr B’s concerns as a complaint because it thought his email related to the upcoming appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. It accepted the remarks Mr B complained about were unfounded. It apologised for any distress caused and for the delay in replying to Mr B’s complaint.
11. Mr B complained to us again in June 2019. He said the Council should:

• offer compensation for the undue stress and anxiety caused to him by its unfounded allegations made to the Tribunal; and
• respond to his complaint made in February 2018.

Analysis

12. We cannot look at anything relating to Mr B’s appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
13. There is nothing in the Tribunal’s decision to suggest it took account of the comments Mr B is concerned about. Further, the Tribunal upheld Mr B’s appeal and he was aware of this in March 2018. I do not consider the comments caused Mr B injustice that would justify our involvement and there are no grounds to ask the Council to compensate him.
14. The Council responded to Mr B shortly before he complained to us again in June 2019. I consider it has now provided a full response to his concerns.
15. It is unfortunate the Council did not recognise Mr B’s email of February 2018 as a complaint. However, it does not appear he raised the lack of a response until February 2019. So, while the Council did not provide a timely response, I do not consider this caused Mr B any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons set out in paragraphs 12 to 15.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman