Warwick District Council (19 018 093)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly informed him his mother’s property qualified for a council tax exemption. We found fault as the Council gave Mr X wrong information and he was put to some time and trouble resolving the matter. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Mr X in recognition of the time and trouble caused which is suitable action for it to take. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with the council tax for his mother, Mrs Y’s property. Mr X says the Council wrongly told him for 10 months he was entitled to an exemption on Mrs Y’s property after she died and would refund payments he made. Mr X also complains the Council gave him wrong information about the procedure to follow to revert the property back to one council tax listing.
  2. Mr X says he received several different council tax bills which were confusing and caused him upset and distress having to deal with the problems. Mr X says he has spent time and trouble attending the Council offices to pass on information. Mr X considers he has paid money he did not need to and wants it refunding to him.
  3. In commenting on the draft decision Mr X alleges the Council told him to merge the two properties back into one. So, he spent money doing the work and wants compensation for carrying out the work as well as the misinformation from the Council about the exemption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

  1. 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

  1. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
  2. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax administration and legislation

  1. The primary legislation for council tax is the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended). The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 (as amended) sets out the categories of property exempt from council tax. This includes properties in category F which are those forming part of a deceased person’s estate. If they remain unoccupied then the Council will apply an exemption until probate is granted. The exemption will continue after that for a maximum period of six months provided the property remains unoccupied and ownership has not transferred from the deceased.
  2. When probate is granted to an executor, the executor is responsible for paying the council tax for the property from the deceased person’s estate. If the ownership of the property is transferred to a beneficiary of the will, any liability for council tax passes to the beneficiary.
  3. Under the law there are eight valuation bands based on the value of a property at 1 April 1991. The valuation is done by the listing officer at the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), part of the Inland Revenue. Local authorities have no alternative but to bill based on the band supplied by the VOA. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is responsible for keeping the valuation list of all properties and their council tax banding up to date.
  4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Key events leading to the complaint

  1. Mrs Y owned a house. The property was split into the main house and annexe. Mr X’s brother lived in the main house and Mrs Y in the annexe. The VOA listed the annexe and house as two separate listings in 2018, so the Council created a separate council tax account for each one. Mr X’s brother paid council tax for the main house and Mrs Y for the annexe.
  2. In 2017 /18 Mrs Y had no liability for council tax as she was regarded as a relative being cared for in the annexe by Mr X’s brother in the main house.
  3. Mr X was the executor of Mrs Y’s estate. Sadly, Mrs Y passed away in March 2018. Mr X told the Council the property was up for sale. The Council amended the council tax account for the property as Mrs Y owned the house and annexe and placed an exemption on the annexe as the property was empty. The Council sent Mr X the council tax bills for the property as executor of Mrs Y’s estate.
  4. Mr X emailed the Council in July 2018 to confirm he had received probate in June 2018 and asked why he had been sent bills showing different charges payable. Mr X said he had notified the VOA he had incorporated the annexe back into the house. Mr X confirmed his brother had remained in the house until 1 June 2018 when he left and moved elsewhere.
  5. Mr X questioned why he had received a bill for Mrs Y’s liability for the annexe when she had previously had no liability. The Council found it had raised a new account for the annexe in error and sent it to Mr X as the executor. The Council realised the error after Mr X’s email and corrected it.
  6. Mr X says he wanted to return the house and annexe to one property to make it easier to sell. He asked the Council about returning the house and annexe to one council tax listing. Mr X states the Council advised him one of the properties (the annexe) would be exempt as Mrs Y had passed away, but if he turned it into one property it would all be exempt. Mr X says the Council advised him to keep paying the council tax based on the current listings and to contact the VOA about returning the property to one listing. Mr X says the Council advised if he did work to the property and it returned to one banding, it would refund any overpaid council tax.
  7. Mr X told the Council in August 2018 the VOA informed him the Council needed to visit the property and confirm it was back to one property since 2 June 2018. Mr X said he unblocked a door and removed a kitchen. Mr X said he had a buyer for the property. An officer visited on 14 August 2018 and sent a report to the VOA that day confirming the merger of the house and annexe.
  8. The Council sent Mr X a reminder notice to pay the council tax for the property. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2018. An officer confirmed the Council had told the VOA about the merger. But until the VOA sent notification of the listing and there was a new charge it must charge council tax as shown on the current listings. The Council amended the instalment payments to allow more time for the VOA to update the property. Mr X agreed to pay the outstanding amount of council tax due. The Council advised Mr X to contact the VOA to get the change actioned quicker. The Council said it had no authority over the VOA so could not ask it to prioritise.
  9. Mr X contacted the Council in November 2018 to advise he had sold the property. Mr X visited the Council offices on 29 January 2019 for an update. The Council advised it received the VOA’s instructions to merge the two properties on 27 January 2019 and it would issue the documentation in due course.
  10. Mr X visited the Council’s offices on 1 March 2019. An officer told him the work had been done and it would release the overpayment credit of £600 to him. While finalising the matter the Council realised Mr X’s brother had lived at the main house until June 2018. So, he was living there when and since Mrs Y passed away. This meant exemption F did not apply because a combination of the house and annexe had been occupied since the death of Mrs Y.
  11. The Council wrote to Mr X in March 2019. The Council explained the situation and it could not award the exemption to the property as it needed to be unoccupied on 5 March 2018 and it was not the case. The Council apologised to Mr X for giving incorrect information about the exemption. The Council confirmed it had charged Mr X the correct amount of Council Tax.
  12. Mr X complained and the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure. The Council explained what had happened. It said it could not refund the council tax Mr X paid on the annexe as the charge was correct due to the property not being eligible for an exemption. It advised the law set the rules for the exemption so it could not defer from them.
  13. The Council said it would remind all staff to thoroughly check all details before committing to giving an exemption or refunding payments.
  14. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns at stage two of the complaint procedure and said the core issue was the lack of clarity given over whether Mr X was exempt from paying council tax for the property. The Council said the law was clear on whether to apply an exemption. It considered the council tax service should have known the property was occupied after Mrs Y died (as Mr X’s brother lived there). And that when the properties merged the exemption on the annexe would become invalid.
  15. The Council confirmed it only realised the property had been occupied after Mrs Y passed away following the formal merger of the properties and confirming the final bill 12 months after Mrs Y’s death. During the 12 months Mr X was told an exemption applied to the property while receiving council tax bills, accepted this was confusing and upheld the complaint. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it was an unusual set of circumstances. It accepted it overlooked some of the circumstances, these should have been noticed earlier in the process and clarified.
  16. Mr X says the Council gave him the wrong information about the procedure to follow to merge the two properties. He says he was told by the council tax service to contact the VOA to start the process of reverting the house to one listing. When he contacted the VOA, it advised him the Council needed to initiate the procedure. Mr X told the Council in August 2018 it needed to visit the property. The Council carried out a visit and sent report to VOA. The VOA did not send the Council confirmation and instructions to merge the properties until January 2019.
  17. The Council upheld this part of the complaint. It accepted some initial confusion as to the procedure and apologised to Mr X. The Council suggested it should have contacted the VOA to save Mr X the time and effort. The Council confirmed once the process was clarified it dealt with the merger in six days. There was then a delay of seven weeks to get formal confirmation from the VOA, but the delay was not due to the Council.
  18. Mr X did not consider Council officers displayed empathy towards him as a bereaved person while dealing with the case. The Council acknowledged this and agreed to consider sending letter of sympathy when notified of a death and recognise the impact of relatives having to deal with the financial consequences when a loved one died.

My assessment

  1. I have found no evidence in the document I have seen to support Mr X’s allegation the Council told him to merge the properties back into one.
  2. The Council accepts it made an error and gave incorrect information to Mr X about whether an exemption applied to Mrs X’s property. It accepts it should have told him the exemption would not apply as Mr X’s brother was living at the property when Mrs Y passed away. Mr X would have been aware much sooner he was considered liable to pay the £600 of council tax as executor of Mrs Y’s estate. So, I consider there was fault by the Council as it gave Mr X incorrect information.
  3. Mr X says he has been caused an injustice as he has been put to time and trouble to resolve the matter and he was given incorrect information about contacting the VOA to revert the property back into one council tax listing. However, I consider Mr X, unfortunately, would always have been put to some time and trouble in resolving the financial affairs as executor for Mrs Y. While I accept Mr X has been put to some extra time and trouble due to the incorrect information about the exemption, the Council has apologised for this. I consider the apology is a suitable remedy for the additional time and trouble Mr X has been put to. I do not recommend any further remedy in this case.
  4. The Council confirmed Mr X has paid the council tax Mrs Y’s estate was liable for. If Mr X wants to dispute liability for paying council tax for the annexe, he has the right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. This is the route available to Mr X to dispute liability for paying council tax on the annexe.
  5. The Council agreed a new process for reporting VOA requests. It has noted Mr X’s concerns about being more sympathetic when dealing with a bereaved person trying to resolve the deceased person’s financial affairs. The Council has acknowledged this and agreed to consider sending in future an appropriate letter to a person acknowledging the situation. I do not consider I can achieve anything further for Mr X as this was an outcome he was seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I am completing my investigation. There was fault by the Council as it incorrectly informed Mr X his mother’s property qualified for a council tax exemption. The Council has apologised to Mr X which is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings