Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not provide information about the council tax premium for empty homes. This is because the Council has provided a remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. In addition, the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she thinks the Council has failed to apply the premium correctly.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains that the Council did not tell her when she would be liable for the council tax premium. She wants the Council to provide an additional £275 in compensation so that she does not have to pay any of the premium.

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 we believe:

• the Council has already provided a remedy, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 and council tax support or reduction. This includes disputes about the council tax premium.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered letters the Council sent to Ms X about the premium and information on the Council’s website about the council tax premium. I considered comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax premium

6. The law allows councils to charge extra council tax on properties that have been empty and unfurnished for two years. Since April 2019 the Council has charged a 100% premium of empty properties. This means properties that have been empty for two years are liable for council tax of 200%. This is explained on the Council’s website.

What happened

7. Ms X bought a property in October 2017. It had been empty and unfurnished since May 2017 because the previous occupier had died. Ms X says she was unaware of when the property became empty when she bought it. Ms X spent many months renovating the property. Ms X says she received a letter from the Council in November 2017 which said the property had recently been vacated by the previous owner.
8. The Council wrote to Ms X in October 2018. The letter said the empty property premium would apply once the property had been empty and unfurnished for two years.
9. The Council sent a council tax bill in March 2019. It did not mention the premium. In July the Council told Ms X the premium was payable from May 2019. The premium ended in August 2019 because Ms X moved in.
10. Ms X complained about the premium and that the Council had not told her when it would start. In response the Council explained it had correctly applied the premium because the property had been empty since May 2017 and change of owner does not affect this. It said it had told Ms X about the premium but agreed it would have been better if the letter had told Ms X when it would start. The Council awarded compensation of £250 for its failure to tell Ms X the start date for the premium.
11. Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She says she has suffered a financial loss due to the Council’s failure to say when the premium would start. She was charged £525 in extra council tax and wants compensation for the full amount. She says she should not be charged for a period before she bought the property. Ms X says the Council did not charge the premium correctly because it did not tell her about it beforehand.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because the Council has already provided a remedy. Once this remedy is taken into account there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation or additional compensation. This is because the Council correctly charged the premium from April 2019 and because the Council gave Ms X information about the premium in October 2018. Ms X could have contacted the Council in 2018, or looked on the website, to find out when the premium would start or to ask for additional information. The Council has accepted it could have provided more information but, equally, Ms X could have asked some questions after she received the 2018 letter. On this basis a 50% refund of the extra council tax is fair.
13. I also will not start an investigation because Ms X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she does not think the Council has correctly applied the premium. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about the premium. The tribunal cannot, however, decide that the Council should not charge the premium in principle or comment on the amount of the premium.
14. Mrs X says the March 2019 bill did not mention the premium. However, the premium did not start until May so could not have been included in the bill valid in April. The Council had to issue a new bill valid from May to reflect the premium.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a remedy and there is not enough remining injustice to require an investigation. In addition Ms X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she thinks the premium is invalid due to the lack of advance notice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman