Summary: The owner of a narrowboat complained the Council had unlawfully billed her for council tax. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter as there is no sign of fault by the Council. The owner instead needed to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to dispute the Valuation Office Agency’s decision to include her boat in the rating list.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council had unlawfully billed her for council tax in respect of the narrowboat she lives on. Miss B said she should not be liable for council tax as she does not have a fixed mooring place, so her boat does not meet the definition of a property subject to council tax in the rating legislation. Miss B also felt the Council was treating her differently to other narrowboat owners in this respect.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, or there is another body better placed to consider the complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the Valuation Office Agency. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint. I also took account of the comments and further information Miss B sent me in response to a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council billed Miss B for council tax for the current tax year. Miss B challenged the legality of the Council’s actions saying that her boat did not qualify as a property for domestic rating purposes.
6. But the Council did not accept Miss B’s view. In particular the Council said it was required to charge her council tax because the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) had included her boat in the rating list.
7. Miss B approached the VOA and they initially agreed her boat should not appear in the rating list. But after further correspondence with the Council the VOA changed its view and decided there were no grounds to alter the rating list in her case.
8. Miss B subsequently appealed to the Valuation Tribunal (VT) about the VOA’s decision and her appeal is due to be heard soon.
9. Meantime Miss B also continued with her complaint to the Council as she felt it had given the VOA false information about her circumstances. However the Council held to its view that Miss B was liable for council tax, and it later obtained a liability order against her for the outstanding tax in her case.

Back to top

Analysis

10. But having considered all of the information provided about Miss B’s complaint I consider that we do not have reason to start an investigation in her case.
11. In particular, I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council for continuing to bill Miss B for council tax. This because the VOA has responsibility for maintaining the rating list of domestic properties subject to council tax, and the Council has no power to alter the list. So if a property is included in the list the Council is bound to bill for council tax on that basis until the VOA informs it of any changes.
12. In the circumstances I consider Miss B’s issue is with the VOA rather than the Council. But this is not a matter the Ombudsman can become involved in as we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints against the VOA.
13. I note that Miss B has now appealed to the VT about the VOA’s decision. It seems to me that the VT is the appropriate body to consider the issues she raises about the legality of the rating decision and whether the VOA relied on false information in reaching this decision.
14. Miss B also claimed that other narrowboat owners in similar circumstances have been treated differently by the Council and have been made exempt from paying council tax. She felt the Council had discriminated against her in this respect.
15. I cannot comment on what the Council has done in other cases. But I do not see sign of fault in the way the Council has dealt with Miss B’s particular case. In the circumstances I am not convinced we are likely to be in a position to find against the Council on the basis of discrimination.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council had unlawfully charged her council tax in respect of the narrowboat she owns. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. In addition Miss B can pursue the issue of the Valuation Office Agency’s inclusion of her boat in the rating list through her appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman