Summary: A narrowboat owner complained about the way the Council had handled various matters in their case relating to their application for a mooring licence, council tax, and its communications with them. But we do not have grounds to investigate the complaint because some issues have now been resolved, some we have looked at previously, and there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused the person an injustice in other respects.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call X, complained about various aspects of the way the Council had dealt with their case as a narrowboat owner. X complained in particular that:
• The Council should reconsider their case to be granted a mooring licence due to their exceptional circumstances;
• The Council is wrongly holding them liable for council tax;
• The Council is unreasonably taking enforcement action against them in respect of council tax arrears;
• The Council has failed to process their claim for council tax reduction;
• A Council officer was aggressive and rude to them in a telephone call;
• The Council persists in using the wrong address and postcode in their case; and
• The Council continues to contact them by post despite their repeated requests for it to use email.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information X provided with their complaint, and their representative’s comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s response to my enquiries in X’s case.

Back to top

What I found

4. X lives on a narrowboat which is moored on a river in the Council’s area. X’s boat is moored at a place where the Council requires boat owners to have a mooring licence, but X does not have a licence. X is on the waiting list for a licence, but their position on the list means they have no immediate prospect of obtaining one.
5. The Council currently charges council tax in X’s case. X disputes that they are liable for council tax on the basis that their boat does not qualify as a property for rating purposes. But the Council said it was required to charge council tax because the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) had included X’s boat in the domestic rating list.
6. X has appealed about the VOA’s decision and they are currently waiting for a date for a Valuation Tribunal hearing.
7. Meantime X has fallen into arrears with their council tax payments. The Council took recovery action regarding this debt. As a result X recently received a summons for a liability hearing in the magistrates’ court.
8. Earlier this year X made a claim to the Council for council tax reduction due to their low income.

Analysis

Mooring licence application

9. X complained to us in the past after the Council threatened to evict them under its moorings policy for not having a licence. We found fault with the Council because it had not considered making an exception to its policy in view of X’s particular circumstances. As a result the Council carried out a review of X’s case in 2019. But it concluded there were insufficient grounds to justify departing from its policy in X’s case.
10. X then complained to us about the Council’s review decision. But we found no fault in the way the Council considered X’s circumstances and decided matters in their case.
11. X’s new complaint is that the Council should reconsider their case for a mooring licence in view of the deterioration in their health and disabilities since 2019.
12. In response to my enquiries about this matter the Council said unless X can provide evidence to justify it looking again at their circumstances, it does not believe it should reconsider their case for a mooring licence.
13. From the information provided, there is no evidence to suggest that X has given the Council any new medical or other evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant it looking at their case again. On that basis I am not convinced there is any sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter. It appears open to X to provide more evidence to the Council now if they have it.

Council tax

14. X complained to us in 2019 that the Council was unlawfully billing them for council tax. But we found no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter. This was because the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has responsibility for maintaining the rating list of domestic properties subject to council tax, and the Council is bound to bill for council tax if a property is included on the list. So X’s remedy in this respect was to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to have their narrowboat de-listed.
15. I see no reason to differ from our conclusions concerning X’s previous complaint in this regard. X is still waiting for their appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to be heard. But as it stands their narrowboat remains on the rating list, so the Council is still entitled to levy council tax until the VOA notifies it of any changes.

Council tax arrears

16. X is unhappy the Council recently took recovery action against them for council tax arrears, despite their pending appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. But I am not convinced we could fault the Council regarding this matter given X’s current liability for council tax.
17. X also complained that they only received a summons about the liability hearing in January 2021 two days before the hearing was due to take place. I have not looked into whether there was any fault on the Council’s part concerning the late delivery of the summons. But even if the Council was at fault, I am not convinced we would be justified in recommending further remedial action as it seems to have already taken sufficient action to remedy matters.
18. In particular I note that when X contacted the Council about the late summons it agreed to withdraw the summons. In addition it agreed to put any further recovery action on hold until after X’s appeal to the Valuation Tribunal is decided.

Council tax reduction

19. X complained about the Council’s failure to pay their claim for council tax reduction after they recently became entitled to Universal Credit. However in response to my enquiries the Council confirmed it had now awarded council tax reduction in X’s case, based on their entitlement to Universal Credit.
20. In the circumstances I do not see that we have grounds to pursue this part of X’s complaint as the issue has been resolved.

Complaint about officer being rude

21. X complained to the Council that a council tax officer was rude and aggressive to them in a telephone conversation. In its stage one response to X about this matter the Council said it had listened to a recording of the call and did not agree that the officer had been rude or aggressive. However the Council acknowledged the officer had made an unnecessary comment, for which it apologised, and said this would be followed up with the officer in future supervisions.
22. If X is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they have the opportunity to ask the Council to investigate matters at stage 2 of its complaint process. As it stands, I see no reason why X should not be expected to complete the Council’s complaints procedure if they are still not satisfied about this matter.
23. In that case X would be able to come back to us if they remain unhappy after receiving the Council’s final response.
24. But in that event, I am not convinced we would find grounds to pursue X’s complaint any further. In particular it seems to me the Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy matters by acknowledging fault, offering an apology, and raising the issue with the officer in question. So it appears unlikely we could justify starting an investigation about this issue.

Communication issues

25. X complained that the Council persists in using the wrong address and postcode in their case.
26. From the information, however, I do not see much recent evidence of mistakes by the Council regarding X’s address and postcode, apart from the postcode being missing from the council tax summons. In its response to my enquiries the Council confirmed the address and postcode it holds for X, which matches the address and postcode X says they use. So I am not convinced we have grounds to suggest X has been caused a significant injustice as a result of any fault by the Council in this respect.
27. X also said the Council continues to contact them by post despite their repeated requests for it to correspond by email.
28. But in its response to my enquiries the Council said it sends the majority of correspondence to X by email. In addition it pointed out that certain documents have to be sent by post. I understand this includes reminder notices and summonses regarding council tax arrears.
29. In the circumstances I am not convinced we are likely to find evidence that fault by the Council in this respect has caused X an injustice to warrant us investigating this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

30. The Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of issues relating to a mooring licence, council tax, and its communications with them. This is because we have already considered some of these matters, some have already been resolved, and there is insufficient sign that any fault by the Council in other respects has caused X an injustice to warrant our further involvement in their case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman