Summary: Mr X complained the Council was wrong to make him liable for council tax while a hearing was ongoing about succession of his tenancy. We found the Council failed to deal with appeal correspondence properly in 2018 and 2019. The Council should make a payment and agree to pass on a late appeal now if Mr X wishes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council should not have held him liable for council tax between 2013 and 2016 at the property he had lived in with his late mother. Mr X says between 2014 and 2016 he was engaged in a court case with the Council to contest his eviction and to establish his right to succeed the tenancy. He says between 2014 and 2016 he was not able to live at the property because his possessions and those of his mother had been damaged and the property was in an unsuitable condition.
2. Mr X complains that he has been pursued for council tax he should not have to pay and the situation has been stressful.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have not investigated the Council’s decision, as a landlord to take eviction proceedings or the alleged damage to possessions that were in the property at that time. This investigation is limited to the complaint Mr X made about Council Tax. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, 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)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. 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

9. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
10. I took account of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate complaints.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

12. Mr X lived in a council property with his mother. In November 2013 Mr X’s mother passed away. The Council says Mr X made contact in February 2014 to advise the Council of this and to discuss succeeding the tenancy.
13. In April 2014 the Council served a notice to quit to Mr X. On 6 May the Council took possession of the property, changed the locks and placed items from the property into storage. Mr X says he was away at the time of the eviction
14. Following a letter from Mr X’s solicitor, the Council gave Mr X keys to allow him to return to the property and it returned his belongings. Mr X stated when the possessions were returned, they had been damaged.
15. In June 2014 the Council wrote to Mr X explaining the Council considered he was an unauthorised occupant of the property. It charged him for occupying the property, but it did not recognise him as the tenant. At that time the Council considered Mr X could not succeed the tenancy. Mr X began court proceedings to challenge the eviction and to argue that he did have the right to succeed the tenancy.

Council Tax billing

16. In November 2014 following a telephone call from Mr X the Council registered Mr X for council tax at the property. It granted a single person discount and sent a bill for council tax due in 2013/14 and 2014/15. The notes of the call stated Mr X appeared to be ‘squatting’ at the property.
17. On 1 March 2015 the Council sent Mr X a bill for council tax for 2015/16.
18. In January 2015 the Council obtained a liability order for unpaid council tax for 2013/14 and 2014/15. It passed the account to bailiffs. Mr X called the Council in June 2015 arguing that the Council should not be taking bailiff action. The notes state Mr X confirmed he was living at the property but he was involved in a legal dispute about the tenancy. The notes state Mr X was told, while he was not the legal tenant he was occupying the property, so he was liable for council tax.
19. On 8 June 2015 the court determined Mr X should have the right of succession and awarded him the tenancy of the property. The court awarded him compensation and costs.
20. Mr X signed a tenancy on 20 June 2016. It was effective from 2 December 2013.
21. The Council’s records noted a contact from Mr X in July 2016. Mr X told an officer his tenancy started in June 2016 and he should not be liable for council tax for the period 1 December 2013 to 12 June 2016 because he was living elsewhere. In August 2016 the council noted a further call from Mr X in which he stated he had been squatting at the property from 2014 onwards. He stated the property had been uninhabitable but he persisted and remained in the property.
22. In 2017 the Council told Mr X it intended to issue a further summons for unpaid council tax. Mr X contacted the Council to dispute the council tax arrears and wanted the matter heard in court. He was advised to put any evidence he had to the court.
23. In 2018 the Council stated its bailiffs had been unable to collect the council tax arrears for 2013 to 2016. The Council stated as a result it was considering seeking committal proceedings.
24. In December 2018 Mr X spoke to the Council. He stated he had not lived at the property while he was contesting the tenancy. An officer emailed Mr X on 21 December following the call. They explained when Mr X was granted the tenancy from 2013, it made him liable for council tax from that point as the tenant. It stated if Mr X was not living at the property, he would still be liable for the council tax. This is because council tax regulations stated there was no discount or exemption for council tax on empty properties.
25. The email stated that if Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision that he was liable he could make an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal within two months of the date of the email. It set out the contact details of the Tribunal. The officer stated, until the matter was heard at Tribunal Mr X remained liable for the arrears.
26. In August 2019 Mr X attended court regarding the arrears. The Council agreed to adjourn the proceedings.

Mr X’s appeal/complaint

27. In August Mr X completed an enquiry form and sent it to the council. He stated he disputed his liability for council tax for 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. He stated he was not compensated for the damage to his belongings until after the court case in 2017, so he argued the property was uninhabitable and he was unable to live at the property while the court proceedings took place. Mr X also sent an email in September 2019 disputing his liability between 2013 and 2016. Mr X chased for a response in November 2019.
28. The Council responded to Mr X’s appeal on 29 November. The Council noted that officers advised Mr X in 2017 and twice in 2018 to write in if he wished to make an appeal about council tax liability. However, it seems at that time he was directed to present evidence to the court regarding his arrears, rather than to write in to appeal his liability. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal. It stated a requirement to succeed the tenancy was that Mr X had to be living at the property. The Council stated Mr X had declared to the Council that he lived at the property verbally and in writing on many occasions.
29. It also explained what council tax would be payable if Mr X was not living at the property and it was empty. Under these circumstances, the Council would only grant a 100% council tax discount for one month, and overall, as an empty property, Mr X would have more council tax to pay.
30. The Council had billed Mr X for council tax throughout the court case. It stated Mr X should have made regular payments throughout the period of the court case to ensure arrears did not build up. The Council explained that Mr X had the right to request a review of this response if he wished. It provided the contact details of the Appeals Manager.
31. Mr X emailed the appeals manager on 3 December and asked for the response to be reviewed. He clarified that while he had stated he “was forced to squat in the property” that didn’t mean he was actually staying at the property. He stated his comment was to draw attention to his view that the property was uninhabitable. He stated it was unreasonable to expect him to pay to reside at the property while also fighting an expensive court proceedings.
32. A complaints officer responded to Mr X in January 2020. The response stated that Mr X’s succession application was approved in June 2016. That showed the tenancy start date was December 2013. So, from December 2013 Mr X was liable for any outstanding council tax. The manager noted Mr X’s concerns about the eviction itself, but noted this had been resolved in court. As the manager found no fault in the way council tax liability had been determined, he stated he could not uphold Mr X’s review. He apologised for the time taken to respond and stated if Mr X was unhappy with the response to his complaint he should go to the Ombudsman.
33. In March 2020 Mr X contacted the Council. He challenged the information he had been given about the appeal procedure on 21 December 2018. The Council agreed that appeals should not be accepted verbally, only in writing, so the information given on 21 December was wrong. The Council clarified that the correct procedure is to make a written appeal to the Council. The Council considers this in the first instance. As a second stage, a taxpayer has the chance to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Was there fault by the Council

34. The law states that the Ombudsman will not normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, to a tribunal. We would generally expect someone to use their rights of appeal, particularly when the body they can go to is specifically set up to consider the issue they are raising.
35. The question of whether Mr X is liable to pay council tax between 2013 and 2016 is one for the Valuation Tribunal and not the Ombudsman. However, we decided to investigate Mr X’s complaint because he presented evidence that suggested the Council may not have correctly advised him about the appeals procedure. We investigated to determine the course of events and to decide if any failure to explain his appeal rights correctly caused him injustice.

2013 - 2016

36. Mr X occupied the property between late 2013 and May 2014 when the Council evicted him. In June, after Mr X challenged the eviction, the Council gave him keys and allowed him back into the property.
37. The Council issued council tax bills to Mr X from November 2014 onwards, making it clear it considered his was liable. It did not recognise Mr X as the tenant, but it did consider he was liable for council tax as the occupier.
38. At times Mr X has indicated he stayed at the property, at other times he stated he could not, due to its condition. Mr X told us that because of the damage to furniture and belongings as part of the eviction, he considered the property was unsuitable for occupation. Mr X sent photographs to us showing the condition of the property.
39. Given the Council had issued council tax bills to Mr X and it sent correspondence explaining its position that he was considered the occupier, I found that it was open to Mr X to challenge his liability for council tax at that time, while the succession case was still being considered by the courts. If he felt the property was uninhabitable at that time, this is also a point he could have raised in his appeal against liability.
40. A council is entitled to issue council tax bills to an individual if it considers them to be liable for council tax. This is what it did between 2014 and 2016. It was open to Mr X to appeal his liability if he wished to at that time. I found no fault in the Council’s actions in respect of council tax between 2013 and 2016.

2017 - 2019

41. In 2017 when Mr X argued he should not be liable for council tax, the Council told Mr X to send any evidence he had of this to the courts, who were considering the council tax arrears. While Mr X could do this, it seems clear he disputed liability, and this was a matter Mr X could appeal. The Council could have made this clearer.
42. In 2018 Mr X asked how he could challenge his liability. An officer incorrectly accepted a verbal appeal from Mr X and responded to it in an email. He stated if Mr X was dissatisfied, he could contact the Valuation Tribunal. This is not the correct procedure. Appeals must be made in writing, so Mr X was given incorrect advice. This was fault.
43. In 2019, Mr X did put a request for an appeal in writing. The Council responded correctly, in writing, to begin with. It explained he could ask for a review of its decision. There was further fault in how the Council responded to his review request. The Council should have considered the review request and explained how Mr X could take the matter to Tribunal if he wanted to. However, it oddly treated his review request as a complaint and directed Mr X to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries the Council told us it did this because it had already explained how to go to appeal in December. But the Council also accepted in correspondence with Mr X that the advice he was given in December was wrong.
44. I recognise Mr X’s argument that the property was not fit for occupation, so he had not lived at the property while the court case about succession was ongoing. However, his argument is about whether he was correctly liable, given the condition of the property. This would be for a Tribunal to decide.

Summary

45. I found overall, Mr X could have taken the matter to appeal when he was originally issued with council tax bills between 2014 and 2016. Mr X’s liability to pay Council Tax is a matter for an appeal tribunal, not the Ombudsman. However, I found there was fault in the way the Council dealt with several requests to make an appeal from 2017 onwards.

Agreed action

46. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council should take the following action:
47. The failure to properly explain Mr X’s appeal rights in 2018 and the failure to follow the correct procedure in 2019 put Mr X to the time, trouble and additional stress of dealing with the ongoing matter and raising a complaint with the Ombudsman. To recognise this the Council should pay him £300.
48. The Council should send Mr X a proper response to the review of his appeal (about liability for 2013-2016 council tax) that he requested in 2019. This should make it clear what process should be followed to refer Mr X's appeal to a Tribunal. If Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response, the Council should send the appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for it to consider a late appeal. It would be for the Tribunal to determine whether it should accept the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

49. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. There was clearly disagreement between Mr X and the Council about his eviction and whether he could succeed the tenancy. However, these issues and any concerns about damage to his possessions have been dealt with in court. We cannot consider these issues as a result.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman