Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him incorrect information about a council tax exemption and also delayed in determining a planning application. After sending incorrect bills for three years the Council then demanded a backdated payment of almost £7,000. An appropriate remedy for the injustice suffered is agreed. An alternative remedy, by way of appeal to a Government Minister, was available in respect of the delay in determining the planning application so this part of the complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave incorrect information about a council tax exemption and also delayed in determining a planning application.
2. Mr X says this meant renovations on a property were delayed and the property remained unoccupied incurring higher council tax charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; an
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X bought a derelict property in 2016 that he intended to renovate and then rent out. Mr X contacted the Council and was told that he would be entitled to at least two years council tax relief while he renovated the property. The Council applied a 100% council tax exemption from March 2016.
7. Mr X applied for listed building permission to carry out renovations in May 2017. The Council approved this application in August 2018. Mr X then began the works which he completed by February 2019.
8. The Council says that due to a system error the 100% council tax exemption remained in place until March 2019. Council tax legislation states this exemption is applicable for a maximum of 12 months. The Council should have notified Mr X in March 2017 that the exemption had ended and sent a bill for council tax from that date.
9. Council tax legislation allows councils to increase the amount of council tax payable on empty properties. The Council charges a premium on properties that remain empty for two years. So from March 2018, the council tax charge for Mr X’s property was 150%. From April 2019, the premium has increased and a charge of 200% is applied to empty properties.
10. The Council accepted it was at fault for not notifying Mr X in March 2017 that the exemption on his property had ended. It wrote off £2,673.23 of the amount owed by Mr X as a gesture of goodwill. A balance of £4,172.36 remained and the Council considered Mr X should pay this.
11. Mr X complained saying that due to the delay in the Council determining his planning application he was unable to start the renovations on his property until August 2018. He feels as this delay was because of the Council, it should write off all council tax owed to February 2019.

Analysis

12. The Council accepts fault in this case. It sent bills in April 2016, 2017 and 2018 showing a nil charge. The bills for 2017 and 2018 were incorrect. In March 2019, the Council contacted Mr X about the error and asked him to repay £6845.59 for the years 2017 and 2018.
13. After Mr X complained about the error, the Council wrote off the equivalent of a year’s council tax.
14. Mr X believes he should be exempted from paying council tax for the time it took to complete his renovations due to the delay in determining his planning application. Mr X says once permission was granted it took five months to complete the renovations. He says it took the Council 15 months to approve his application and he should not be penalised for this delay.
15. I agree with Mr X that the planning decision took too long. Planning applications should normally be determined within eight weeks and this did not happen in this case. However, it was open to Mr X to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of non-determination after eight weeks.
16. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints where a right of appeal to a Government Minister exists and it was reasonable for that right of appeal to be used. I have not seen any information to show it was not reasonable for Mr X to use this right of appeal to resolve the delay in the determination of the planning application.
17. The Ombudsman’s role is to put people back in the position they would have been but for the fault. Any remedy recommended by the Ombudsman should not benefit the person making the complaint.
18. In this case, if there had been no fault by the Council then Mr X would have received the correct bills in 2017 and 2018 and he would have been required to pay the council tax for those years.
19. Mr X argues that if he had been sent the correct bills, he would have carried out the works more quickly. He says that because he received bills showing a nil charge, he did not worry about the time taken to approve his planning application or the general speed of the renovations. He also says he had no idea the council tax charge would increase to 150% of 200% after the property was left empty for more than two years. The Council says it is unlikely the works would have been completed any sooner.
20. Once Mr X got the planning permission he completed the works within 5 months and rented the property out quickly after this. While I cannot know for certain what would have happened but for the Council sending out incorrect bills, on balance, I do think Mr X would have completed the works more quickly. In reaching this view I have considered the fact that for the year 2018/19 the charge increased to 150% and for the year 2019/20 this increased to 200%. I think this increase in the council tax charge for an empty property would have been an incentive for Mr X to finish the works more quickly. This was not his home but a property he intended to rent out and so there was a financial consideration.
21. While I acknowledge the Council has provided a remedy in this case, I believe a further remedy should be provided.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. In addition to the amount already awarded by the Council it should pay Mr X an amount equivalent to the additional council tax charged between April 2018 to May 2019 because his property had been empty for more than two years. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman