Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the date from the which the Council held the complainant liable for council tax after her tenant moved out. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because the matter has been resolved.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council wrongly made her liable for council tax from 7 January. She says she is liable from 22 January which is one month from when the tenant gave notice.

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 an investigation if the matter has been resolved. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. This includes a recent email saying Ms X is liable for the council tax from 22 January 2019. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Ms X is a landlord. She says she received notice, on 22 December 2018, that a tenant was leaving. The tenant was required to give one month’s notice.
7. The Council made Ms X liable from 7 January 2019. It said it had evidence that the tenant gave notice on 7 December. Ms X complained. She said she was only liable from 22 January. She said the tenant gave notice, via social media, which Ms X does not use. Ms X said she read the notice on 22 December. In response the Council said it would be unfair for it to charge the tenant extra council tax because Ms X had not read the notice. In August 2019 the Council told Ms X she could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagreed with the decision that she was liable from 7 January. The Council gave Ms X the contact details for the tribunal and told her she had until 7 October to appeal.
8. Ms X did not appeal although she continued to complain to the Council about the decision. In November she sent the Council a copy of the tenancy agreement and said the tenant was required to give notice in writing to the address on the tenancy agreement.
9. The Council reviewed the case in January 2020 and explained why, in its opinion, the tenant was able to give notice electronically. It said that the tenant gave notice on 7 December but, as Ms X did not read it until 22 December, that was the date it was served. The Council issued a new bill making Ms X liable from 22 January. The Council told Ms X she had two months to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she thought the revised decision was wrong.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because Ms X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal in August if she disagreed with the Council’s decision. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider council tax liability disputes. The tribunal would have decided the date from which Ms X should be liable for the council tax. Ms X can appeal to the tribunal if she disagrees with the Council’s decision from January 2020.
11. I also will not start an investigation because the matter has been resolved. Ms X said her liability should start from 22 January 2019 and that is what the Council decided in January 2020.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because Ms X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because the matter has been resolved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman