Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled decisions about eligibility for rate relief. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided Mr X was not eligible for rate relief to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council has remedied the injustice to Mr X caused by poor communication during its complaints process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision about his eligibility for rate relief and poor communication. He wants the Council to reconsider its decision and cancel its demand for the repayment of the rate relief.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

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. Mr X complained the Council awarded rate relief and then later told him it was a mistake and asked him to repay the money. He says this has caused stress and uncertainty.
7. The Council agreed it had not initially follow the correct procedure and said it would undertake training. It agreed there were delays in communicating with Mr X and it apologised to him.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. The Council has acknowledged the distress and uncertainty it has caused Mr X and has apologised. It has taken suitable steps to prevent this from happening again.
9. Mr X wants the Council to reconsider its decision that he is not eligible for rate relief. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding he was not eligible. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided he was not eligible for rate relief. The Council has remedied the injustice caused by poor communication with Mr X during its complaints process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman