Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the council tax empty property premium. This is because Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted wrongly in adding the empty property premium to the council tax on a property he is responsible for. He states this has caused financial difficulty and stress.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided, copy correspondence and information from the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The council tax and the empty property premium

4. When a property’s only occupant dies, the Council exempts the property from council tax until six months after probate is granted. The Council then charges normal council tax, but if the property is still empty two years later, the Council charges the empty property premium (EPP), which doubles the council tax.
5. In any individual case, the Council has discretion to reduce the council tax on a dwelling. (Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 13A(1)(c)) Where the Council decides such a request, the taxpayer has the right to appeal against that decision to the Valuation Tribunal, an independent tribunal. This is an important point, as it means the Council’s decision is not necessarily final.

Mr X’s case

6. The complaint concerns a house owned by a relative of Mr X’s. When the relative died, the house became empty. Mr X is the executor of his relative’s will.
7. The property was still empty two years after Mr X got probate, so the Council started charging the EPP. Mr X contacted the Council, arguing that in this particular case it should not charge the EPP because of circumstances he said had hindered his ability to clear and sell the property. He cited cultural factors, procedural problems, practical problems with Mr X living in a different part of the country and additional difficulties caused by the national lockdowns due to COVID-19 in 2020.
8. Mr X also suggests that, leaving aside the EPP point, the Council should charge less than the standard council tax on the property.
9. Mr X asked to pay less council tax. That meant the Council’s discretionary relief power and Mr X’s right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal applied. Therefore, the restriction described in paragraph 2 applies here. The Valuation Tribunal has the expertise to consider such matters and the power to issue binding decisions. After we contacted the Council about this complaint, the Council told us on 23 April 2021 that it would contact Mr X to confirm its position and to advise him he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he still disagreed.
10. In all the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s refusal to reduce his council tax.
11. It is not clear if the Council responded promptly to Mr X’s complaint about this matter. However, 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. So I shall not pursue this point either.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman