Summary: Mr C complains that the Council pursued council tax enforcement, despite him providing information which showed his debt had not been calculated accurately. The Council was at fault in how it handled his appeal, and this led to extra costs being added to the debt. The Council has agreed for these costs to be removed and to offer a financial remedy to Mr C for his time and trouble.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council pursued council tax enforcement, despite him providing evidence that showed he was not liable for the debt. Mr C says that this resulted in extra costs being added to the debt.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. As part of this investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the council; and
• spoke to Mr C about his complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties, and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The law says people must pay their council tax. If a council tax debt remains unpaid the council can serve a summons and ask the magistrates’ court for a liability order.
8. A liability order is a court order confirming the person must pay the amounts due plus costs. The court must grant an order if it is satisfied the sum has become payable and has not been paid. If someone wants to dispute a liability order they must appeal to the High Court. If payment is still not made the council may pass the account to bailiffs.
9. The Council’s council tax policy explains what exemptions are applied to empty properties. It says that a 100% discount is offered for the first month, followed by a 25% discount for up to two years.
10. The Council’s policy explains that if someone feels that the Council has made a mistake calculating their bill, they can appeal in writing or email. If they are dissatisfied with the Council’s response the can then appeal further to the Valuation Tribunal.

What happened

11. Mr C is the owner of a property which he previously leased to tenants. In October 2017, his tenants contacted the Council, and told them that they had vacated the property in early September. The Council therefore applied a 100% discount to the tenant’s council tax bill for the one-month period between September and October.
12. In November, Mr C contacted the Council after he received a council tax bill. He explained that his tenant had vacated the property in early October, so questioned why he had not been given 100% discount for the subsequent month.
13. The Council explained to Mr C that his previous tenants had said that they had vacated the property in September, and asked Mr C to provide evidence to support his claim that his tenant had moved out earlier than this date.
14. Mr C subsequently forwarded the Council copies of text messages, which indicated that the tenant was still living at the property at the end of September, and that they were planning to move out in early October.
15. The Council wrote to Mr C to inform him that the evidence he provided was insufficient. The Council said that, in order to give Mr C the exemption, it would need to see evidence that his tenant was still residing in the property up until early October, and that the messages Mr C had sent did not prove this.
16. Mr C said that the texts did show that his tenant was using the property until early October. He said that he would only pay the Council tax that he owed, and that he would contest the matter in court.
17. In May, the Council contacted Mr C to inform him that his council tax bill was overdue. Mr C responded, saying that he would not pay the balance until the 100% discount had been added.
18. The Council subsequently issued Mr C with a Court summons. At the hearing, the Court issued Mr C with a liability order for the debt and the Council were awarded costs. At the hearing Mr C was told that he could formally appeal the matter of the exemption with the Council.
19. Call records show that after the court hearing, Mr C contacted the Council and it advised him of the procedure for him to formally appeal the matter of the exemption.
20. Mr C subsequently submitted a formal appeal. He said that he was previously unaware that there was a formal appeal process open to him and questioned why he had not been told about it when he had contacted the Council about the matter before.
21. The Council contacted Mr C and asked him if he could provide any evidence that the property was furnished up until the tenancy end date. Mr C said that he was unable to do so.
22. In July, the Council wrote to Mr C to inform him that it had amended his bill and applied the exemption from 1 October.
23. Upon contacting Mr C, he informed me that since complaining to the Ombudsman the debt has been passed to the collections department, and bailiffs fees had been added.

Analysis

24. Although the events that Mr C complains about happened more than 12 months ago, I made the decision to exercise discretion and investigate his complaint. This is because the matter is still ongoing.
25. Mr C became liable for council tax on the property, after it was vacated by his tenant and left empty. However, he disputed the amount owed and refused to pay until the matter was resolved. This led to the Council applying to the courts for a liability order which led to court costs being added to bill, and subsequently bailiffs’ fees were also added.
26. When Mr C became aware that a one-month exemption had not been added to his Council tax bill he contacted the Council by email. It does not seem that this was treated as an official appeal by the Council, and I have not seen any evidence that the appeals process was explained to Mr C, until after the court hearing.
27. When Mr C contacted the Council again after the court hearing, they did treat his email as a formal appeal, and informed him of the appeals process. Having reviewed the information that Mr C provided to the Council at this stage I do not consider that it is significantly different to the information he provided when he first contacted made contact about the matter.
28. Having considered the above points I have concluded that there was fault in how the Council dealt with this this matter. This is because it had the opportunity to either treat Mr C’s first correspondence as an appeal or inform him of his appeal rights at this stage. If it had done so on the balance of probabilities it would have found in his favour as it did in May. If not, Mr C would have had the opportunity to appeal to the Valuations Tribunal.
29. Mr C has been consistent in explaining to the Council and to the Ombudsman, that his reason for non-payment is solely related to the one-month extension. For this reason, I am satisfied that if this matter had been resolved earlier, it would have avoided the need for the Council to proceed with recovery action, which led to court and bailiff costs being added to Mr C’s account. Furthermore, Mr C would not have had to go to the time and trouble of pursuing this complaint.

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice, I have identified in this case the Council have agreed that within one month of the date of my final decision they will:
• Suspend recovery action against Mr C; and
• Recalculate Mr C’s council tax bill, removing court and bailiff costs; and
• Apologise to Mr C, and offer him a payment of £100 to remedy the time and trouble he has taken to pursue this complaint. This payment should be used to offset any outstanding balance of Mr C’s council tax bill.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have concluded my investigation, on the basis that there was fault which caused an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman