Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with the council tax account for the property he occupies. We find there was fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice to Mr B for which a remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains about how the Council dealt with the council tax account for the property he rents. He complains the Council failed to deal with a structural repairs discount, then closed the council tax account and failed to respond to enquiries, so that payments could not be made. He complains that the Council has failed to provide an adequate response to his enquiries about the action it took in relation to his council tax account. The Council’s actions caused him distress and time and trouble seeking to resolve matters.

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. 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. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in response.
5. I have taken account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered all comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

7. The primary legislation for council tax is the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (hereafter LGFA 1992). The main secondary legislation concerned with collection and recovery is The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613 (hereafter A&E Regs).
8. Council tax is charged for occupation on a daily basis. The council tax year starts on 1 April.
9. The LGFA Act (Section 6(2)) sets out the hierarchy of liability for each chargeable dwelling.
10. Appeals against the decision of a billing authority that someone is liable for the council tax are made first in writing to the council. The same applies to decisions not to award a council tax discount or exemption. Appeal is then to the Valuation Tribunal Service. Decisions which carry such a right of appeal are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under S26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974, with the proviso that the Ombudsman may decide to investigate if he considers it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal.
11. Councils may also set an ‘empty homes premium’ for properties that have been empty for over a specified period.
12. Before anyone can be pursued for council tax they must have been sent a demand with their name on. If the council cannot identify the person responsible they can send out a bill to ‘The Council Tax Payer’ (Reg 2(3) A&E Regs).
13. The process between the issue of a bill and the issue of a liability order involves the issue of at least one reminder before issuing a summons for a liability order hearing at the magistrates’ court. Statutory time limits apply to the various stages of the process.
14. Recovery of council tax is by action in the magistrates’ court. Matters from the service of the summons to the end of the hearing are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under Schedule 5.1 to the Local Government Act 1974, which refers to the commencement or conduct of civil proceedings before a court of law.

What happened in this case – summary of relevant facts

15. Mr B’s mother, Mrs C, purchased the property relevant to this case in February 2017. Mr B reports that he has lived at the property since then, although this was later subject to query as referred to later in this statement.
16. The Council obtained confirmation of Mrs C’s ownership of the property from the Land Registry in November 2017, and it then issued council tax bills to her at that address for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 years.
17. On 5 December 2017, Mr B sent an email to the Council advising the bills had been received at the address but that he, under a company name, was ‘in control of’ the property, which he said was ‘obviously unfurnished and unoccupied’. He said major repair works were being done and he asked for revised bill with a 50% discount. Such discount can be given for a maximum 12-month period when structural or major repairs are being done. The Council issued a form for the discount, but again addressed this to Mrs C.
18. In January 2018, the Council issued first reminders to Mrs C at the address for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 billing periods. Mr B again contacted the Council having received post not addressed to him, and he asked the Council to ensure that all future mail be addressed to him.
19. Acting on this information the Council changed the name on the council tax account to the name Mr B had provided. However, the Council then went on to continue with the billing to recovery process: it did not withdraw the reminders and continued with the recovery process as if Mr B had been billed in his name and had received those first reminders in his name. It wrote to him to say a summons would be issued, incurring costs. Mr B contacted the Council again saying an accurate bill was still awaited. The Council then issued a final notice to Mr B for 2016/17 and 2017/18 and subsequently issued a summons for these years and for 2018/19, despite further representations from Mr B about the incorrectly addressed documents received at his address. That was fault, because the Council had not followed the correct process of issuing bills and reminders to Mr B, in his name, before doing so.
20. In March 2018, the Council issued the bill for the 2018/19 year to Mr B at the address. Mr B responded asking again about the discount he had requested in December 2017. The Council issued another form for the discount, this time correctly addressed, in May 2018. It received the completed form back in July 2018, with details of works including plastering, plumbing, boiler installation, and roof repair.
21. The summons the Council had issued to Mr B in respect of the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years resulted in a liability order. Mr B contacted the Council to complain. The Council at this point said the name on the summons and other recovery documents had been incorrectly changed to show Mr B’s name, and it withdrew the associated costs which had been applied to the account. But it then altered the name of the council tax account back again to Mrs C, and transferred £500 Mr B had paid onto Mrs C’s account. That was fault. The Council paid it back when Mr B contacted it about this, and it asked him to confirm what he meant by being ‘in control of’ the property: it asked him if he had a lease or tenancy and if so to forward a copy.
22. There then followed an extended period in which the Council once again billed Mrs C for the council tax for the address, and issued reminders and summonses to her. Some of this correspondence went to Mr B’s address, some to Mrs C’s home address which the Council had traced via Companies House and the electoral roll. One letter addressed to her, but at Mr B’s address, was notifying of the Council’s decision to refuse the 50% discount Mr B had requested. The Council was also in email correspondence with Mr B at this time. He advised he was currently occupying the property (the renovation address) but was still getting letters addressed to his mother, which he returned, and he again advised the Council that he was the occupier and wanted accurate demand properly addressed. The Council also wrote to Mr B, in November 2018, at the home address held for Mrs C: in that letter it advised as he was not liable for council tax at the relevant address he could not appeal against the refusal of the discount.
23. In December 2018, Mr B again asked for council tax demands to be sent addressed to him at the address as the occupier of the property, and he advised that the owner (Mrs C) had agreed he was to be the liable party.
24. In 2019 the Council continued to send bills and other recovery correspondence including summonses to Mrs C at her home address. It issued the new bill for 2019/20 to her also, but to Mr B’s address. He returned it and the Council again altered its records to show Mrs C’s home address, then continued with recovery action issuing a further summons and instructing enforcement agents.
25. On 22 August 2019 Mr B and Mrs C both emailed the Council about the incorrect billing and the Council was asked to stop enforcement action.
26. In respect of Mr B’s occupation of the property, and the matter of repairs, in August and September 2018 Mr B and the Council had exchanged emails. The Council wished to visit to ascertain whether the property required the work stated and fit the criteria for the council tax major works reduction. Mr B submitted some photographs and said he expected the works to be completed by Christmas.
27. In August 2019, the Council visited the property, and from its external appearance judged it to be unoccupied, although the notes of the visit confirmed not much could be seen. Later in the complaint process the Council said photographs had been taken at the visit and Mr B asked to see these. Only one was provided and there is no evidence that any further photographs had been taken. It is likely that the reference to photographs was a simple error, but in any event the substantive issue here is the occupation of the property and any resultant impact of that on the council tax charged on it. The Council has said in its response to my enquiries that Mr B has still not confirmed the date he moved into the property or indeed whether he is occupying it. The information on this point does appear to have been confusing. Mr B told me he has occupied the property since February 2017. He told the Council in December 2017 however that the property was ‘obviously unfurnished and unoccupied’. In an email in October 2018 Mr B told the Council he was ‘currently occupying’ the property. In any event however, decisions about discounts and premiums relevant to occupancy carry appeal rights as set out in paragraph 10 above.
28. On 7 October 2019 Mr B provided the Council with a copy of his tenancy agreement, which had originally been requested in August 2018, but which could have been requested as early as December 2017 when Mr B had said he was ‘in control of’ the property. The Council then issued a bill for 2018/19 and 2019/20, and adjustment notices for 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2019/20, followed by a ‘third reminder’ for 2018/19 and a first reminder for 2019/20, and then another adjustment notice for 2019/20. In January 2020, the Council issued a summons for the 2018/19 year and the matter progressed to a liability order. The Council had again failed to follow the correct process of billing and reminders and this was fault.
29. On 14 October 2019 the Council issued bills to Mr B for 2018/19 and 2019/20 showing discounts and premiums applied to take account of the property being in major works and then unoccupied; it issued adjustment notices showing discount for the period 28 February to 31 March 2017, and for the 201/18 year, both showing credit. The Council should have been in a position to issue these bills sooner, but as noted above in addition to the considerations of discounts and premiums there was a lengthy period when bills were not being correctly issued in the right name to the right address.

Summary analysis

30. As identified above, there were several significant faults by the Council in how it dealt with matters associated with Mr B’s liability for council tax. There were faults in the billing process which meant that reminders, final notices, and summonses were wrongly issued. There were also faults in the Council’s communications with Mr B, both in terms of how correspondence was addressed and in terms of failure to act appropriately on information provided.

Injustice to Mr B

31. As a result of these faults, Mr B was caused distress and considerable time and trouble in seeking to resolve matters, even taking into account that which he might have mitigated by providing requested information, for example about his tenancy, sooner.

Agreed action

32. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B by the Council’s faults in this matter, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issues him with a formal written apology;
• Pays him £400.

33. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman