Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out an investigation into whether Mrs X was living at a property and whether it should be subject to an empty property charge.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s investigation into her Council Tax account was disproportionate, intrusive and caused significant distress to her and Mr Y.

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 or continue with an investigation if 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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 have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mrs X;
• Discussed the issues with Mrs X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 provide a billing authority shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the amount calculated for the Council Tax is subject to a discount.
7. Section 26(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations (CPIA) 1996 provides a person other than a police officer can carry out an investigation with a view to finding out whether a person should be charged with an offence or a person charged with an offence is guilty of it. Section 3.5 of the Code of Practice for CPIA provides an investigation should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
8. Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 refers to fraud by false representation.

What happened

9. Mr Y’s daughter, Ms Z, owns a property which I will call property A. The property has been empty for a number of years. Mr Y is managing the renovation of the property. The Council charges Council Tax of 150% on properties that have been unoccupied and unfurnished for more than two years.
10. Ms Z notified the Council that Mrs X was living at property A. The Council registered Mrs X as the occupier with a single person discount of 25%. It removed the empty property charge. However, the Council believed the property to be uninhabitable so it visited on several occasions to check if it was occupied. Officers left calling cards which Mr Y and Mrs X did not respond to. The Council referred the matter to its fraud investigation team as officers considered it was possible Mrs X’s was wrongly claiming a discount.
11. The Council carried out an investigation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Officer B was the investigating officer. He applied to the National Anti- Fraud Network (NAFN) to check if gas and electricity were being used and to check if there were any telephone accounts, credit cards or loans at the property to establish if it was occupied. Officer B’s enquiries established there was no current gas supply or water account for the property. He considered the electricity usage figures were inconclusive as they were estimated and not recent. The Council considered the utilities showed possible non residency at the property which needed to be further investigated.
12. Officer B visited property A and found no one was at the property. He also visited the neighbours to ask if the property was occupied. They informed him the property was empty.
13. Mrs X contacted officer B in response to his visit. The Council’s records show Mrs X told officer B she lived in a caravan in the garden.
14. Officer B arranged to visit Mrs X. Mr Y was also present at the visit. Officer B’s record of the visit notes he informed Mrs X and Mr Y of the purpose of his visit and that he would information provided against other sources. The record also notes Mrs X showed officer B inside cupboards and her wardrobe which contained her belongings and Mr Y showed him the building works. Mrs X has said officer B inappropriately went through her belongings at this visit. The Council has said he did not.
15. Officer B then carried out DVLA checks on Mrs X and Mr Y’s cars for the addresses of the registered keepers and credit reference checks to see if Mrs X was linked to property A. The DVLA check linked Mrs X to another property which I will call property C. The credit check linked Mrs X to Mr Y’s property which I will call property D.
16. Officer B carried out a number of visits to property A to see if Mrs X was there and the progress of building works. He did not see Mrs X on the visits. He also visited property D due to the credit check linking Mrs X to the property. He also made enquires which established Mrs X owned property C and she paid the Council Tax at the property.
17. Officer B visited the neighbourhood of property C. The record of the visit notes he did not have time to visit property C. But he spoke to a neighbour who said they were unsure if Mrs X still lived there. Officer B also noted Mrs X’s property was for sale. Officer B contacted the estate agent to find out if Mrs X owned and was selling the property.
18. Officer B also carried out further visits to property A and property D. Officer B’s records note he intended to visit Mr Y’s neighbours to establish who lived at property D but did not do so due to the proximity of property D and the risk he would be heard by Mr Y. Officer B also carried out further visits to property C and left cards for Mrs X’s neighbours to contact him. One neighbour advised Mrs X still lived at property C but she had a lodger and was not often seen there.
19. As I understand it Mrs X and Mr Y reported officer B’s actions to the police. The police contacted officer B for information on why he had contacted Mrs X’s neighbours and the estate agent. The police did not take any further action.
20. Officer B invited Mrs X to an interview to be conducted under the police and criminal evidence act (PACE) guidelines and under caution. Mrs X did not attend the interview. Officer B invited Mrs X to another interview which she did not attend. He then referred the matter to officer E, a senior officer.
21. Officer E, a senior officer, sent a letter to Mrs X advising the Council believed she did not live at property A and asking her to contact him. Mrs X did not respond. So the Council decided, based on the evidence from officer B’s investigation, that Mrs X did not live at property A. The Council refunded the Council Tax paid by Mrs X and applied an empty property charge to the property. This meant Ms Z as the owner was liable for the Council Tax charge of 150%.
22. The Council decided Mrs X had committed fraud by false representation and she and Mr Y were defrauding the Council of 75% of the Council Tax due on the property. However, it decided it should interview Mr Y and Ms Z to establish their roles. Ms Z attended an interview under caution. Mr Y declined to be interviewed. He made a complaint about the manner of officer B’s investigation. The Council did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint.
23. Mrs X paid the Council Tax due on behalf of Ms Z. The Council considers by doing so Mrs X and Mr Y acknowledged Mrs X did not live at the property.
24. Mrs X considers officer B’s investigation into her Council Tax account was unnecessarily intrusive, intimidating and inappropriate which caused distress to her and Mr Y. She considers officer B was following her and continued to do so after the conclusion of the investigation.
25. I asked the Council to explain why officer B contacted neighbours and Mrs X’s estate agent as part of its investigation. The Council has said officer B suspected Mrs X was not living at property A and she and Mr Y were trying to avoid the Council Tax liability at the property. So officer B considered it was appropriate to corroborate the information provided by Mrs X and Mr Y with third parties. He contacted neighbours to ascertain whether the property was occupied and vacant and contacted Mrs X’s estate agent to see if she was resident at property C. The Council considers these were reasonable lines of inquiry.
26. The Council has confirmed it did not access Mrs X’s bank records, did not carry out surveillance and has not carried out any further action since August 2018 when the investigation concluded. The Council has said it has not yet made a decision to prosecute pending my investigation.

My assessment

27. The Council can carry out an investigation into a person’s Council Tax account if it has reason to believe the person may be wrongly claiming a discount or not paying the amount of Council Tax they should be liable for. The Council had concerns Mrs X could not be living at property A as it previously noted it to be uninhabitable. The Council’s records show it made reasonable initial enquiries as to whether it was occupied as officers left calling cards but did not receive a response. So, the Council is not at fault for referring the matter to its fraud team to investigate.
28. I understand Mrs X found officer B’s investigation to be intrusive and intimidating. But there is no evidence of fault in how officer B conducted his investigation. The Council needed to establish if Mrs X was resident at property A. Officer B’s check on the gas, water and electricity did not establish Mrs X was resident. Officer B’s initial DVLA and credit checks linked Mrs X to properties B, C and D. The Council has explained why it considered contacting neighbours and the estate agent was a reasonable line of enquiry. Statements from neighbours show they provided conflicting information about where Mrs X was living. Officer B’s own visits to all the properties, including property A, did not readily establish where Mrs X was living. Given the conflicting evidence, it was appropriate for the Council to pursue the investigation as far as it did in order to determine if Mrs X was living at property A and correctly claiming a single person’s discount or whether the empty property charge should be reinstated.
29. In response to my draft decision, Mrs X has said two councillors visited her at property A so the Council was aware she was living there. I do not know if the councillors informed officers of their visits. But I will not pursue this further as it is unlikely the information would have curtailed the Council’s investigation or changed its decision. This is because the Council had received conflicting evidence of where Mrs X was living. So even if the councillors told officers Mrs X was living at property A, officer B would still have had to investigate if this was the case. The Council also had to consider all the evidence, including the conflicting evidence, when reaching its decision on whether Mrs X was correctly claiming the single person’s discount.
30. I cannot establish if officer B inappropriately went through Mrs X’s belongings during his visit as there are no independent witnesses and no means of establishing what happened. There is no evidence to show officer B continued to visit property A or the other properties after the Council concluded the investigation in August 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out an investigation into whether Mrs X was living at a property and whether it should be subject to an empty property charge. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman