Summary: Mr B says the Council was at fault for maladministration of council tax charges on his late wife’s house, for making unjustified charges for summonses to his daughter and wife and for a failure to provide information on council tax rules and charges. The Council has refunded court costs. It provided sufficient evidence of such costs to the court. However, it wrongly closed Mrs B’s council tax account. This was fault for which it has already apologised.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of his late wife, Mrs B, and his daughter, Ms B, that the Council was at fault for:
1. A failure to refund court costs wrongly imposed on his wife when the Council served a summons on her while she was seriously ill in hospital;
2. A failure to justify the amount that it charged for court costs;
3. Applying for liability orders when incapable or unwilling to prove liability;
4. Claiming that court costs were ‘non-negotiable’; and
5. Poor communications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. A late complaint is one made more than 12 months after something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr B on the phone. After our conversation, he sent me further information. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council requesting more information. I considered all the evidence alongside the relevant law and wrote a draft decision.
6. I sent my draft to Mr B and the Council and invited comments. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Ombudsman should not consider complaints made out-of-time, i.e. where the complaint is made more than 12 months after the events complained of, without good reason. In this case, I have decided to investigate because, while the dispute concerns an original event from 2013, the matter did not become apparent until 2016 when Mr B complained.
8. Since then, he has never entirely let the matter drop and the Council did not fully address the matter until August and September 2018. After this Mr B came to the Ombudsman promptly.

What should happen

Council tax

9. Most adults who own or rent a property must pay council tax. Every property is placed in a council tax band and, each year, the council sets a council tax rate. The rate applies to properties with at least two adults living in them.

Single person discount

10. Where only one adult lives in a property, the payer will receive a 25% discount.

Exemption from council tax on death

11. Where an owner/occupier dies, the house is automatically exempted from council tax under exemption F1 until the grant of probate.
12. Once probate is granted, exemption F2 exempts the property from council tax for a period of six months. Thereafter, if the property has yet to be sold or ownership transferred, the executors become responsible for tax on the property.

Administration

13. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (‘the Regulations’) say:
• Councils must serve a notice in writing on every liable person as soon as possible after the day it sets the council tax rate for the year. (Regulation 19)

• Taxpayers should pay by instalments. Where they have not been paid, the council must serve a reminder notice stating the amount outstanding. If the taxpayer fails to pay the sums due in a further seven days. within seven days, the full amount becomes due. (Regulation 23)
• Where a taxpayer still does not pay, councils must serve a final notice on them, unless a reminder notice has been sent, in which case, a final notice is not a requirement. (Regulation 33)
• Where council tax is unpaid, a council may apply to a magistrates’ court for a liability order which requires the person summonsed ‘to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding’. (Regulation 34)
• If, after the summons is issued, the tax is paid before the hearing, the authority must accept the payment and not proceed. (Regulation 34)
• Where the court makes a liability order, it must be for a sum equal to the tax payable and ‘the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order’. (Regulation 34)

What happened

14. In 2012, Mr and Mrs B separated. Mrs B bought a house, (‘the house’) in the Council’s area. She wrote to the Council in January 2013 informing it she had bought it. It was in council tax Band B. The full council tax payable was £1242.34 for the tax year from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.
15. Mrs B was seriously ill and spent much of her time in hospital. She was also virtually blind. Oblivious to this, the Council sent her a council tax bill which she did not pay. It then sent her a summons for the unpaid tax with a demand for a further £103 added for court costs added making a total of £1345.34
16. In July 2013, Mrs B contacted the Council. She paid £500 and set up a direct debit to pay the remainder, including the £103 costs, by January 2014.
17. Mr B says he contacted a councillor in August 2013 on Mrs B’s behalf. The Councillor arranged for Mrs B to receive a single person discount of £233.15 and a council tax reduction of £540.19.
19. As a result of this, Mrs B had paid all that was required during the year. The Council wrote to her in October 2013 confirming that she was up to date with her council tax and had, in fact, overpaid. It sent her a refund of £69. The invoice stated that she had paid the £103 court costs and fees.

Mrs B’s death

20. Mrs B continued to reside at the property until her death in December 2014. She left the house to Ms B in her will.
21. The Council wrote to Ms B several times in 2015, asking if probate was arranged. Ms B responded in May 2015 saying it had not. Nonetheless, the Council set up a council tax account in Ms B’s name in 2015 and, on 31 December 2015, sent her a demand for payment as owner, not executor. The Council wrote to Ms B as executor for Mrs B in December 2015 informing her that the account was closed and was due a rebate of £12.16.
22. However, Mrs B’s mortgage company refused to transfer ownership as it was still owed money. Therefore, the house is still owned by the executors, of whom Ms B is one, on behalf of Mrs B’s estate.

Mr B’s letter

23. In February 2016, Mr B wrote to the Council saying it had not refunded £103 court costs added to the bill in 2013 which it should have done. The Council responded on 9 March 2016 saying it had never agreed to do so.

Summons of Ms B

24. On 22 February, the Council sent Ms B, as the supposed owner of the house, a reminder letter saying she owed outstanding tax. The Council later issued a summons to Ms B telling her it would apply for a liability order on 27 April 2016.
25. Mr B and Ms B attended to contest the application and spoke to a Council officer, Officer O. The magistrates adjourned the hearing to 15 June 2016 so that a senior officer could review the case.
26. On 2 June 2016, Officer O wrote to Ms B saying that, after speaking to her and Mr B, the Council accepted Ms B did not own the property and had cancelled the council tax account in her name and would no longer apply for a liability order.
27. Officer O said that, instead, she would create a revised council tax bill in Mrs B’s name. She also said she had applied the six-month exemption appropriate in cases where probate has been granted but the estate was yet to be settled.
28. On 15 June 2016, Mr B wrote to Officer O saying she had not removed the £103 court fees and costs from the portion of the bill which related to Mrs B’s liability. He asked her ‘Please, will you credit the deceased account with this refund.’
29. Mr B did not believe he had received a satisfactory response to the points he raised during the April meeting. On 4 November 2016, he sent an email to Officer O restating his points. On 15 November 2016, Officer O wrote to Mr B answering his points which were that the Council:
1. Had nowhere set out the ‘rules’ for the administration of council tax;
2. Had no ‘dispute resolution process’ for the public to challenge council tax arrears decisions;
3. Kept Mr and Ms B waiting at court for several hours;
4. Had stated that summons costs were ‘non-negotiable’;
5. Had not provided a breakdown of costs for applying for a summons;
6. Had been negligent in not advising citizens of the consequences of not paying council tax;
7. Should phone or email council taxpayers before issuing proceedings;
8. Council prosecuting officers were not solicitors.
30. Officer O responded to each point in turn saying:
1. The Council had no duty to set out the rules. These were available on the .gov.uk website.
2. The Council followed the law set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 by applying for a liability order where council tax had not been paid. If someone summonsed objected to the making of an order, he or she could attend court and the hearing would be adjourned so that more evidence could be brought. In this case, the Council had met Mr and Ms B the next day, realised its error and rectified it.
3. The Council was not able to control the court schedule which was in the hands of the Magistrates’ Court.
4. The court costs were non-negotiable in the sense that the Council has to charge them. It had to justify the amount charged to the court. However, in certain circumstances, the court can waive the demand for costs. She said, ‘This would have certainly been the case in the example you have given concerning your late wife who had been experiencing significant health problems at the time we issued a summons’.
5. She provided a breakdown of the Council’s costs per summons which worked out at £109.98 which it rounded down to £100 and told Mr B that the Council provided this breakdown to the magistrates before every council tax session.
6. The Council had information about non-payment on its website.
7. There were too many applications for liability orders for the Council to contact those in danger of non-payment by phone or email in advance.
8. Council officers were empowered to appear in court by the Local Government Act 1972.
31. In January 2017, Mr B sent a letter to the Council with a cheque for £589 enclosed. He said, ‘You will note I have reduced the amount by £103. This is the amount that my late wife [Mrs B] was incorrectly charged by the Council and which has not yet been refunded to the account’.
32. In August 2017, Officer O wrote back to Ms B acknowledging receipt of Mr B’s cheque for £589. Officer O said, ‘Your father has made enquiries regarding summons costs of £103.00 that had been charged to your late mother’s council tax account on 12 June 2013. Please be reassured that these costs were removed on 2 June 2016 and that the revised bill I issued to you on 3 June 2016 for £1,385.90 had taken this into account’.
33. Therefore, Officer O said, Mr B had paid £103 less than was due. She asked Ms B to pay £103 by the end of August 2017 to avoid further recovery proceedings.
34. Mr B phoned the Council and then wrote in early October 2017 asking the Council to justify the amount charged. He paid a further £500 towards the total.
35. The Council then issued a further summons to attend court for an application for a council tax liability order. Mr B wrote to the Council asking that he wanted to represent Ms B at the hearing which they would contest. He said it was unfair if the Council was allowed to be represented by a non-legally qualified representative if his daughter could not. He asked the Council to withdraw its summons and discuss the matter.
36. On 23 October 2017, Mr B’s case was taken over by Officer P. She wrote to Mr B saying the Council tax bill for the house for 2016 was for £1,385.90. Mr B had paid only £1282.90, £103 short. Since then, he had paid £500 for the 2017 council tax. The Council had, therefore, taken £103 from this to make up the shortfall. Therefore the 2016 bill had been settled and the summons was withdrawn. This meant that £1002.80 was outstanding for £2017. The Council invited Mr B to set up a direct debit.
37. On 31 December 2017, Mr B wrote to the Council to complain about its administration of council tax. His complaint was largely a restatement of the points to which Officer O had responded in November 2016.
38. In his letter, he said the complaint was about two things: Firstly, he disputed the council tax liability. He believed the Council had not refunded the £103 court costs so he wanted:
1. The Council to prove it had refunded the £103;
2. Compensation for the time spent dealing with the matter; and
3. Procedures changed to prevent others from undergoing the same experience.
39. Secondly, he objected to the £103 costs added to accounts after summons. He said the Council was ‘disingenuous’ to claim this charge was ‘non-negotiable’ because the magistrates might waive costs. He also questioned the level of the charge saying that the true cost was 46p (the cost of postage) not £100.
40. Officer P wrote back to Mr B in January 2018. She said she would treat his complaint as an appeal against liability so that, if Mr B remained dissatisfied, he could go to the valuation tribunal. She also addressed his other points again. Principally, she said the £103 charged to Mrs B’s account had been withdrawn and the Council could and had justified the level of the charge.
41. Mr B wrote to the Council again saying that, if a summons was issued, he would defend it and that he would require a hearing that day, not an adjournment. He said he would not make any further payments until the matter had been resolved.
42. Mr B wrote to Officer P in March 2018. He said he had just received her January letter. He said his complaint was about liability but about maladministration. He said that, while Officer P had told him to go to the Valuation Tribunal to dispute liability, he had previously been told by Council officers to ‘pay up or go to court’ and the Council’s website said complaints should be sent to the Council’s customer relations department which is what he had done in December 2017.
43. Mrs B’s building society continued to object to the property being transferred to Ms B’s name and to deny permission for them to let out the property. Mr and Ms B wrote to the Council to tell them this in March 2018.
44. Officer Q took over the case at around this time. After correspondence clarifying the position, he wrote to Mr and Ms B on 7 June 2018 saying that Mrs B’s estate would continue to be liable for council tax going forward. He said no further exemption could be awarded. He advised them that the Council had recently introduced a council tax premium of 50% for unoccupied properties so this would be payable. He said he had removed all summons costs from the account.
45. On 17 June 2018, Mr B wrote again saying that he still disputed the Council’s claim that the £103 had been removed from the account.
46. Officer Q replied in mid-August 2018. He set out a history of liabilities and payments on the account from 2012. He said the council tax due since Mrs B had bought the house, inclusive of all discounts and exemptions and exclusive of any court summons or associated costs, was £5193.66. The amount paid was £2789.01 leaving a balance to pay of £2473.65.
47. Mr B replied on 23 August 2018 disputing Officer Q’s arithmetic. He attached Mrs B’s council tax statement from October 2013 showing the account up-to-date with the £103 paid. He later complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Failure to refund £103

48. Mr B’s fundamental complaint is that the Council failed to deduct the £103 charged to his wife’s account while she was extremely ill and in-and-out of hospital in 2013 and that it failed to show him that it had done so.
49. Mrs B’s council tax statement for 2013 showed Mrs B was fully up-to-date and having paid court costs of £103. Indeed, having received benefits and discounts, she had overpaid and was refunded £69.
50. However, in 2016, Mr B met Officer O who told him the money would be refunded and, later, that it had been refunded. Mr B refused to accept assurances from Officers O, P and Q that the sum was credited to the account. In August 2018, Officer Q provided a detailed calculation which shows the money is not owing. Mr B refused to accept this and instead continued to question the debt.
51. I have carried out the calculations using Officer Q’s figures, which Mr B has not questioned, and found they show the money was refunded. If Mr B had done the same, he could have satisfied himself similarly. Therefore, this part of Ms B’s claim is not made out. I do not find fault.

Failure to justify the charge for court costs

52. Mr B says the costs of sending out the summons is, in fact, 46p and there is no justification for the remaining £99.54 being charged. This is not the case. 46p is the cost for sending the summons letter which is a small proportion of the costs of the summons process.
53. The Council has proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates’ court that the real cost is more than £100. As the figure has been determined in court, this is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit. As this fee was withdrawn in any event, Ms B has not suffered any injustice.

Applying for liability orders when not ready for court

54. In our phone conversation, Mr B said the Council had repeatedly issued summonses but, when he had attended and demanded the Council prove the debt, it had withdrawn. He said this was unlawful.
55. This is not what happened. The Council wrongly transferred council tax liability to Ms B in 2015. This was fault for which the Council has already apologised. The Council wrote to Mr B in February 2016 saying it had never agreed to remove the £103 court costs. This was, at the time, true.
56. After meeting Ms and Mr B after the summons hearing in April 2016, Officer O accepted the property had not been legally transferred. She closed Ms B’s account, reopened Mrs B’s account, and removed all court charges from that account in June 2016.
57. The next year, the Council issued a second summons for non-payment, this time against Mrs B’s estate. This was because there was £103 outstanding on the account. Mr and Ms B again disputed the charge. He says the Council withdrew because it could not justify the claim. This is not the case. The Council wrote to Ms B and told her it had withdrawn the summons because Mr B had sent £500, £103 of which had been used to clear the £103 arrears.
58. The Council would not have issued a summons had Ms B made regular payments. Mr B could still have asked the Council to prove it had repaid the £103.

Court costs ‘non-negotiable’

59. Mr B says the Council is wrong to say court costs are ‘non-negotiable’ because magistrates might waive them. I do not agree. The Regulations say the court must order payment of a council’s costs in addition to the outstanding tax. They also say councils must justify the amount of the charge to the court. The Council’s statement that costs are ‘non-negotiable’ is correct. They are required and fixed.
60. Magistrates might waive them but that is not a matter of negotiation but of discretion and is not within the council’s control. I do not find fault.

Other points

61. Mr B has made many other complaints which I will deal with briefly below
62. He says that, when Ms B was first summonsed for non-payment of council tax in April 2016, he and she had to wait for four hours at the magistrates’ court. This is not a matter within the Council’s control.
63. Mr B says he was not allowed to address the court while a Council officer who was not legally qualified was allowed to do so which was unfair. This is not a matter for the Council. The Local Government Act 1972 explicitly permits council officers who are not lawyers to present such cases.
64. Mr B says the Council has not set out the rules about Council tax. I cannot say what the Council’s website was like in 2013, but it now contains a reasonable statement of the position: I cannot uphold this part of the complaint. Even if there was no statement, this had no bearing on whether council tax was due. Nor could it have meant that Mr B was unaware that council tax was due.
65. Mr B says the Department of Local Government Guidance to Council on Good Practice in the Collection of Council Tax Arrears June 2013, say Councils should take all reasonable steps before obtaining a liability order. The Council followed the procedures set out in the regulations and is not therefore at fault.
66. Mr B says the Council should have provided a breakdown of the costs charged by the Council for the issue of a summons. Officer O answered this point fully in her letter of November 2016. It did so as is required by law.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I have decided the Council was at fault for closing Mrs B’s account and opening one for Ms B without ensuring the property was transferred. It has already apologised. Otherwise, the Council was not at fault. I have therefore closed close my investigation without recommending any further remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman