Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his council tax liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision that he, and not his tenant, is liable for council tax for the period between May 2019 and August 2019. He also complains that in correspondence about another matter the Council addressed the letter to include his deceased wife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
5. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X owns properties which he rents out to tenants. One property, which I shall refer to as 1 Lime Road, was let to tenant Q. When Q left the property the Council billed Mr X for the period it says the property was empty.
8. Initially the Council closed Q’s account from the date its records showed Q had left the property in April 2019. However, because Mr X contacted the Council to say he had been given no notice by Q, it agreed to amend the account and allow for one month’s notice so that his liability began in May 2019.
9. The Council billed Mr X for the period May 2019 to August 2019 (when a new tenant moved in) but Mr X disputes he is liable.
10. The Council addressed his complaint about this matter, setting out the information provided by its records and it advised Mr X that as there is no record of another tenancy, he is liable.
11. In a separate matter, the Council sent Mr X a letter about a different property and included in the address and salutation the name of Mr X’s deceased wife who had passed away a number of years ago. In response to Mr X’s complaint about this, the Council apologised for the distress caused and explained the reference to Mrs X had been made because the department involved had obtained details of the registered owners from the Land Registry which still showed Mrs X as a joint owner.

Assessment

12. Mr X says he is not liable for the outstanding council tax for 1 Lime Road because another tenancy agreement covered the period in question and therefore the tenant is liable. I am not aware that he has provided evidence of this to the Council but if he has and the Council does not change its decision then he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
13. This is a statutory tribunal specifically set up by Parliament to hear appeals about council tax liability and we would reasonable expect Mr X to make use of this alternative remedy so placing this matter outside our jurisdiction.
14. It is most unfortunate that the Land Registry still showed Mrs X as a joint owner and that the Council then used this information. However, it has apologised for the distress caused to Mr X and we will not investigate the matter as an investigation by the Ombudsman would not seek any further remedy to the apology already provided.
15. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he is aware of his appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal but that he is complaining about the bullying behaviour of the Council and that it lost copy tenancy agreements his tenants gave in to it. However, as landlord, Mr X should have had his own copy of these agreements which he could have provided to the Council himself. If he has already provided them and the Council still considers he is liable then he can exercise his appeal rights to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman