The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is responsible for his late council tax reduction claim and loss of benefit. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council is responsible for him not getting council tax reduction because it failed to tell him a benefit claim can only be backdated 6 months. Mr X says he would have been entitled to benefit during the Covid-19 lockdown, March to June 2020, but he did not claim until 2021. Mr X says the Council should have given better information. It should have given more help when he told it he had a problem completing the claim form due to a reading related disability.
Mr X complains the Council in July 2021 issued a summons to court for the council tax debt. Mr X says the Council refused to delay the court date so he could take legal advice. It failed to deal with his freedom of information/subject access request regarding his contacts with it.
Mr X complains the Council withdrew £947 via his council tax direct debit without giving him notice. The bank refunded the money.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone.
My assessment
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reason: There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X by how the Council handled his contacts about a benefit claim. The Council is not responsible for the delay in submitting the claim which was over a year. The Council sent Mr X a claim form in April 2020 following the closure of his business due to Covid-19. On 2 July Mr X contacted the Council saying he had returned to work. He was having a problem completing the 30-page claim form which he could not understand and requested information he could not get or was not relevant. The Council advised Mr X to obtain a letter/information from Universal Credit (which he and his wife had claimed before the Covid-19 pandemic). The advice and information were reasonable in the circumstances and Mr X could be expected to pursue the matter promptly given his low income. I have not seen evidence that Mr X asked the Council for help later. The Council received the claim form on 25 May 2021. Mr X tells me that having returned to work it was not his top priority to return the claim form. He tells me he had contacts with the DWP who would not supply a letter but there was no reason why he could not have established the position in a matter of days.
There is no fault in the Council pursuing court action for non-payment of council tax or in it not delaying the court date. Mr X received the summons. On 12 August 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X and said it would stop court, due on 18 August, if he made a suitable payment arrangement. Mr X tells me he did not take up this suggestion immediately. Having contacted the court, he made an arrangement to pay with the Council so the court case did not proceed. The Council’s complaint reply having considered the communication before court decided to cancel the related costs of £82.50 as a gesture of goodwill.
It is reasonable for Mr X to go or have gone to the Information Commissioner if he wishes to pursue a complaint that the Council failed to deal with his request for his case information (see paragraph 5 above).
There is no injustice caused by the direct debit handling because Mr X was protected by the terms of the scheme. He tells me the bank refunded the money within “a matter of days”.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is responsible for his late council tax reduction claim and loss of benefit. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman