Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council considering Mrs X liable for some council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about matters related to the Council billing her for council tax she believes she is not liable for. She says this has caused her stress and inconvenience.

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. The law 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, or would have been, unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided and copy complaint correspondence the Council supplied. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

Liability for the council tax

5. Mrs X owns a flat that she rents out. In September 2019 the Council sent Mrs X a bill for council tax it says was owed from November 2017 to February 2018. The Council says the flat was empty between tenants in that period, so it considers Mrs X, as the owner, was liable for the council tax then. Mrs X disputes this. She questions the accuracy of the date the former tenants seemingly told the Council they had moved out and why the Council took so long to deal with the matter. Mrs X argues the former tenants, rather than she, are liable for the council tax in question.
6. The Council took recovery action including getting a liability order against Mrs X for the amount and instructing enforcement agents. The Council told Mrs X she could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disputed her liability.
7. The central point of the complaint is whether the Council is correct to consider Mrs X liable for the council tax in question. The Valuation Tribunal can decide that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. The Valuation Tribunal has the expertise to decide the matter and the power to order the Council to stop holding Mrs X liable for the council tax if it sees fit. So in my draft decision I stated I considered it reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Response to my draft decision

8. Responding to a draft of this decision, Mrs X argued it would not have been reasonable to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. She refers to information the Council gave her in two emails about her alternatives, so I shall quote the relevant sections.
9. The Council’s response to Mrs X dated 11 March 2020 (which Mrs X reports she did not receive until 4 September 2020) said:

‘You can appeal the Council's decision to hold you liable for the council tax for the period in question. Should you wish to do so, you should submit an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal within two months of the date of this response.’

‘Please note that the debt remains payable while an appeal is pending. If the appeal is heard and decided in your favour, any amount overpaid would of course be refunded to you.

‘You have now reached the end of the Council's complaints procedure. At this point I would usually signpost a person to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), should they remain dissatisfied with the Council's response. While you are of course welcome to contact the LGSCO should you wish to do so, the Council's position is that the Valuation Tribunal is the more appropriate way for you to challenge the decision about the council tax.’

10. After further contact from Mrs X, the Council emailed on 22 October 2020:

‘You can appeal the Council's decision to hold you liable for the council tax. Should you wish to do so, you should submit an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal within two months of the date of this response… If you intend to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, an interim payment arrangement will have to be agreed towards the debt that includes any fees incurred by [enforcement agents]. If the Tribunal finds in your favour, any payments would be refunded.’

‘Because you have reached the end of the Council's complaints procedure, you can of course contact the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), although the Council feels an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal would be the most appropriate course of action.’

11. Mrs X says she had financial constraints so did not consider it reasonable to appeal because the Council had said she would have to make interim payments. The Council’s advice was in line with the Valuation Tribunal’s position that appellants should still pay council tax while appealing. So there was no fault in the Council saying that.
12. I have considered whether Mrs X’s financial constraints made it unreasonable for her to appeal. The total amount at issue was £471.77 then. The Council did not say Mrs X must pay immediately or fully while appealing. Rather it mentioned agreeing a payment arrangement. It was implicit that any such arrangement would have had to take account of what Mrs X could afford. I am not persuaded this point made it unreasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal.
13. Mrs X said she feared it would be difficult to get a refund from the Council if she paid then appealed successfully. That is speculative and does not persuade me the Ombudsman should investigate.
14. Mrs X argues the Council gave her two alternatives: the Valuation Tribunal, for which the Council said she would need to make interim payments; or the Ombudsman, which the Council did not say would involve interim payments, so she chose the latter. Mrs X states if the Council had mentioned just the Valuation Tribunal, she would have used that route. She argues she should not be disadvantaged by the Council giving her alternatives.
15. However, the Council had not given the two choices equal weight. In both emails, the Council said the Valuation Tribunal was the more appropriate route for this matter. That is correct, as the Valuation Tribunal is the specialist body for such matters. So this point does not persuade me.
16. Mrs X also says it was not reasonable to appeal as she is elderly and felt physically and mentally constrained by the COVID-19 situation, having been shielding for months. I do note those difficulties. However, the Valuation Tribunal, like any public body, has to make adjustments for people with health and other difficulties and can also allow for the COVID-19 situation in how it works. This point does not persuade me it was inherently unreasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal.
17. Mrs X says she considered the 2-month timescale unreasonable. While Mrs X is entitled to her view, that is the Valuation Tribunal’s standard timescale. I have seen no evidence suggesting Mrs X could not have acted within two months.
18. Mrs X says a factsheet the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman sent her about council tax complaints said we could consider complaints about a council doing something wrong in dealing with a council tax account and about delay. While the factsheet does say that, it first states:

‘We cannot normally deal with complaints about issues where you can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. These include…whether you are liable for council tax’

So I do not consider we misled Mrs X into thinking we would definitely pursue her complaint.

19. Mrs X states she cannot now appeal to the Valuation Tribunal as more than two months have passed since 22 October 2020. However, as paragraph 2 explained, the legal restriction on our power applies when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, to a tribunal. Mrs X could have appealed, even if she can no longer do so. It was Mrs X’s choice to wait almost to the end of the two-month period before contacting the Ombudsman instead of appealing. The Valuation Tribunal can also consider an appeal outside the normal two-month timescale in some circumstances, so Mrs X can still seek that.
20. I am also mindful the Valuation Tribunal, not the Ombudsman, has the expertise to decide who is liable for council tax and the legal power to enforce such decisions on councils.
21. For the reasons given above, I am not persuaded that it is unreasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. So we shall not investigate whether the Council should demand payment from Mrs X.

Other parts of the complaint

22. Mrs X also complains about some of the Council’s actions regarding how and when it decided she was liable, how it communicated with her and how it took recovery action. Those points are closely linked to, and peripheral to, the main question of whether Mrs X should be liable for the council tax demanded. As we are not going to investigate that, it would be disproportionate to investigate these matters.
23. Mrs X is dissatisfied with how the Council handled her formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because the main issue is whether Mrs X should be liable for the council tax and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the tribunal on that point. Mrs X can still request a late appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman