Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed billing him for council tax. The Council’s late billing happened because the Valuation Office backdated a change in banding. The Council told the Valuation Office of the works following their completion. The issue of late bills is therefore not due to fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council delayed billing him for council tax.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's mother’s comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided:
• considered Mr B’s mother’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. Section 27(6) of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992 says:
• ‘If in the course of the exercise of its functions any information comes to the notice of a charging or billing authority which it considers would assist a listing officer in carrying out any of his functions, it shall be the authority’s duty to inform the listing officer.’

Background

6. Mr B’s mother applied for planning permission to erect two-storey two-bedroom ancillary accommodation. Mr B’s mother’s intent was to move into the ancillary accommodation, with Mr B and his wife moving into the main accommodation. Mr B says the planning department told his mother she could probably not sell the two properties separately. Mr B’s mother did not contact the Valuation Office to tell them about the new property as she did not believe she had any reason to given the properties share a boiler, gas and electric meters, utility room and back door. Mr B’s mother moved into the ancillary accommodation and Mr B and his wife moved into the main accommodation. The Council told the Valuation Office of the works in May 2017.
7. In 2019 Mr B’s mother and her neighbour approached the Council about potentially renting out another part of the development as a holiday let. An officer visited the property and inspected the property occupied by Mr B and his wife and the annex his mother lives in. The Council made a further referral and the Valuation Office decided the two properties should be treated as separate units and backdated that decision to May 2017. That meant Mr B received backdated council tax bills in 2019. Mr B says the Council should have referred the case to the Valuation Office in 2017 as it knew about the development and it is the Council’s failure to do that which means he now has council tax arrears.

Analysis

8. Mr B says the Council delayed billing him for council tax. Mr B says when his mother applied for planning permission to create a two-storey annex the Council knew the extent of the works and the works were for an annex rather than an extension. Mr B therefore says the Council is at fault for not amending his council tax in 2017. Mr B says if the Council had done that he would not have received backdated bills.
9. The law does not prevent the Council issuing backdated council tax bills. However, the Council cannot issue a council tax bill without a banding for a property. It is the Valuation Office, rather than the Council, that decides banding. In this case the Valuation Office did not provide a separate banding for Mr B’s property until 2019. So, the Council could not have issued a council tax bill for Mr B’s property until 2019. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for issuing backdated bills to reflect the Valuation Office decision that Mr B’s property warranted a separate banding from May 2017. The issue is therefore whether the Council took the right action when works to the property completed.
10. The Local Government and Finance Act 1992, which I refer to in paragraph 5, makes clear it is the Council’s responsibility, as the billing authority, to tell the Valuation Office when it becomes aware of matters which might help the listing officer in carrying out its functions. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council knew of the planning permission and the associated changes in 2017 and therefore the issue is whether the Council told the Valuation Office, as it should have done. I am satisfied that it did as the Council has an electronic record showing the referral made to the Valuation Office in May 2017. That referral told the Valuation Office of structural alterations which might potentially increase the banding, briefly described the changes and provided the Valuation Office with the planning application reference number. While the description of the changes does not refer to creation of an annex I am satisfied the Valuation Office had the planning application reference which gave it accurate information about what had been applied for and granted. As I am satisfied the Council correctly told the Valuation Office of the changes in 2017 I have no grounds to criticise it. I am unsure whether the Valuation Office carried out a visit in 2017 but as the Valuation Office falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction I cannot investigate that matter. As the Council took the action it is required to do under the terms of the Act I cannot say fault by the Council led to it issuing backdated council tax bills. That happened because the Valuation Office backdated the banding to 2017.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman