Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council formulated its policy on charging council tax on empty homes. This is because we can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X as Mr X’s personal injustice is best dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council formulated its policy on charging council tax on empty homes. Mr X feels he has been penalised by the Council’s policy.

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. 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 will achieve no meaningful outcome for the person complaining or there is another agency better placed (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and I have sent him my draft decision on it for his comments. I have considered the comments Mr X made in response in formulating this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complains about how the Council formulated its policy on charging council tax on empty homes. Mr X considers a report put to Council Members when the Council’s policy was adopted made no mention of Government guidance that council tax empty homes’ premiums should not penalise homeowners that are trying to sell their properties. Mr X therefore feels Members lacked all the information to make an informed decision.
6. The Council’s policy is to charge a premium of 100% council tax on properties that have been empty for two years.
7. Mr X himself has been affected by the Council’s policy as he had an empty property in the Council’s area which was for sale and was charged the council tax premium.
8. The Council advised Mr X of its discretionary powers to reduce council tax. Mr X asked to be considered for this but the Council refused Mr X’s application. Mr X has appealed against this decision to the Valuation Tribunal (VT).

Analysis

9. Mr X’s specific complaint is about how the Council formulated its policy. We will not investigate this as the injustice claimed by Mr X which arises from this, the council tax charge, and whether the Council was wrong not to reduce it, is best addressed by the VT. We cannot determine what council tax Mr X should pay.
10. In a broader sense, I do not consider there are public interest grounds to investigate how the Council formulated its policy. This is because the Council also operates a discretionary council tax reduction scheme which considers whether council tax should be reduced in individual cases, including scenarios where empty homes might be for sale.

Back to top

Final decision

11. My decision is we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the VT is best placed to deal with Mr X’s own case and there are not public interest grounds for us to investigate how the Council determined its policy for council tax on empty homes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman