Summary: Mr B complained the Council gave incorrect advice on its policy on council tax exemptions and failed to consider his complaint within reasonable time. The Council says it has now considered his request and decided the exemption does not apply. We find fault with how the Council considered this matter which caused Mr B an injustice. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100. We do not find fault with the decision itself.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council gave incorrect advice when it said it would grant a three month council tax exemption for an empty property. He says when he complained to the Council it took too long to reply to his complaint.
2. Mr B says this has caused him uncertainty and frustration and would like the Council to allow the three month exemption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the documentation provided by Mr B in support of his complaint and the information provided by the Council.
8. Mr B and the Council have been sent a draft and I considered the comments before making a final decision.

Legislation

9. Councils have discretion under s13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) to reduce or ‘write off’ council tax debt as it sees fit. I will refer to this as s13A relief.
10. A taxpayer can appeal for a discretionary discount for any reason. The council should have some mechanism to consider such requests, with criteria against which they are judged.
11. Each local authority has their own discretion as to whether any council tax discount be made available when a property is empty. The Council’s policy in this case is that no discount or exemption would be offered.
12. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.

What I found

13. Mr B contacted the Council in May 2020 relating to an empty property that he was a trustee of.
14. He says that his partner, Mrs C, spoke to a Council advisor and asked if the unoccupied property would be exempt from council tax.
15. The Council advised that a three month council tax exemption would be applied to the property and a note would be placed on its system confirming this.
16. Mr B says the Council did not apply the exemption as he had expected and complained to the Council in July 2020.
17. Mr B said he did not receive a reply to his complaint and the first contact from the Council about his complaint was after he emailed in November 2020 to chase the progress.
18. In an email exchange, the Council said that its advisor had misinterpreted the situation and had instead relayed information to Mrs C about the possibility of deferring payments for three months or a payment break. The Council quoted its policy and said it did not offer council tax discounts and said there was no discretionary empty property discount. It apologised for any confusion about the advice Mr B had been given.
19. The law allows the Council discretion about what council tax it levies on empty properties. The Council’s policy on this can only be challenged by judicial review in court.
20. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman in December 2020.
21. In January 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the Council and asked it to consider Mr B’s request using its discretion under s13A relief.
22. The Council told the Ombudsman it had now considered Mr B’s request using its discretion and decided he was still not entitled to the exemption. In response to my enquiries in March 2021, it said Mr B had acknowledged that he was told verbally that both he and the other trustee were liable for the on-going council tax charges.

Analysis

23. The law says that a council’s charging policy in respect of empty properties can only be challenged by way of judicial review in the courts. We therefore have no remit to challenge the Council’s policy on this or to ask the Council to waive council tax that is due.
24. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for incorrectly advising Mrs C that a three month exemption applied. This was fault which raised Mr B’s expectations that he would be entitled to a three month council tax exemption.
25. Section 13A gives the Council discretion to reduce council tax payable. While I cannot criticise the Council’s policy on empty property discounts, I would have expected the Council to consider whether the circumstances of Mr B’s individual case qualified as an exception to its policy on empty properties. I have seen no evidence that at the time of his request the Council used its discretion. The Council also failed to write to Mr B to explain its reasons. This was fault.
26. The Council’s response to the Ombudsman in both January and March 2021 noted it had now considered and re-examined Mr B’s request using its discretion under s13A relief. The Council decided Mr B was not entitled to an exemption. I am satisfied the Council has now properly considered Mr B’s request under s13A and so this is a decision the Ombudsman cannot interfere with. It noted that Mr B was told verbally that both he and the other trustee were still liable for the on-going charges. However, the Council was unclear in its response as to whether Mr B had formally been made aware of its decision in writing. The Council should have written to Mr B explaining it had now re-assessed his request, giving its reasons and explaining the outcome of its decision.
27. Now the Council has made its position clear, Mr B can exercise his appeal rights to have this considered at the Valuation Tribunal if he chooses.
28. There was unnecessary delay in replying to and dealing with Mr B’s complaint, causing him to chase a response four months after he first complained. The Council’s website says that it should respond to complaints within 20 days. While I recognise the Council’s ability to handle complaints during the COVID-19 pandemic might have been reduced for a time, our guidance makes it clear that we expected councils to tell complainants of any delay and where possible, give a realistic timeframe for a response. The delay in this case was fault and caused an injustice to Mr B in the form of avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To address the injustice caused the Council has agreed by 6 July 2021 to:

• Apologise to Mr B in writing for the delay in dealing with his complaint.
• Write to Mr B explaining it has now assessed his request for council tax exemption using s13A relief, explaining its reasoning and decision and explaining his right to appeal.
• Pay Mr B £100 for the avoidable frustration.
• Use this decision to remind relevant staff to consider s13A relief where it is applicable.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find fault with the Council and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman