Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision on her council tax charges and its poor communications, causing her financial loss and distress. We decided not to investigate the Council’s decisions as Miss X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. We found fault with the Council’s communications. We recommended it apologise to Miss X, publish its discretionary reduction policy, and remind its staff to inform service users of their appeal rights.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about a council tax premium charge on an empty property. Miss X feels the Council has failed to properly consider her circumstances and believes it should exercise its discretion to waive this. Miss X also complains the communication from the Council was poor. She says she had to chase replies and got inconsistent responses.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated whether the Council is at fault in the way it communicated with Miss X.
3. I have not considered whether the Council was right to apply the premium or to refuse Miss X’s application for a discretionary reduction. I have given my reasons at the end of this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
8. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint and considered all the information she and the Council have provided.
10. I have also considered the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council’s policy relating to empty properties.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to respond to a draft of this decision. The Council responded and I considered its reply. Miss X did not respond.

Back to top

What I found

Long Term Empty Property Policy

12. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 gives local authorities the power to levy and collect a dwelling tax. This is known as council tax.
13. Since 2013 Councils have been entitled to apply an additional council tax premium to properties that have been empty for more than two years. This is a discretionary premium, and it is for the Council to decide whether to apply it.
14. The Council’s council tax policy explains that if a property has been empty for two years, full council tax rates will be payable plus an extra 100% charge. It goes on to explain that if a property is empty for over five years, full council tax rates will be payable plus an extra 200% charge.
15. If service users are unable to pay the increased premium they can apply for a discretionary reduction. If they disagree with the charge, they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Discretionary reductions

16. Section 13(A)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 gives councils discretion to reduce the council tax payable for homes in their area.
17. Councils must make a discretionary reduction scheme for people it considers to be in financial need. If someone asks to pay less council tax, the council should suggest they make an application for a discretionary reduction.
18. Any reductions are discretionary, and councils should have a function to consider requests, with criteria against which they are judged.
19. A council’s decision to grant or refuse a discretionary reduction can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
20. We expect councils to have a published process for considering requests. However, the Council’s policy is not on its website.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

21. In 2018, the Ombudsman published a document setting out principles of good administrative practice and what we expect to see from Councils when dealing with complaints.
22. This document recommends councils explain and respond to any delays proactively. It also recommends councils deal with people helpfully, promptly, and sensitively, taking account of their personal circumstances.

What has happened

23. Miss X’s property has been empty since January 2013.
24. As Miss X’s property had been empty for more than two years, when the Council sent her council tax bill for the year beginning 1 April 2015 it included the long-term empty premium. The Council calculated this at an extra 100% of Miss X’s usual council tax bill.
25. By the tax year starting 1 April 2020, Miss X’s property had been empty for more than five years. The Council applied the five-year empty premium of 200% to Miss X’s council tax bill which was sent out on 8 March.
26. Miss X filled out an enquiry form on the Council’s website on 25 March. She explained she was going through a high-risk pregnancy and a dispute with her neighbour. Miss X asked the Council to waive the long-term empty premium until she sold her house.
27. As she had received no response, Miss X applied for an Exceptional Hardship Payment on 1 April. Miss X emailed the Council’s customer service team the following day to chase.
28. Miss X emailed the Council again on 6 April. She explained she had submitted an online form before the council tax fell due but received no response. Miss X explained payment was now due and she felt obliged to pay.
29. The Council responded to Miss X the following day to explain it no longer accepted these queries by email and redirected her to the online form.
30. On 14 April the Council wrote to Miss X in response to her application for an Exceptional Hardship Payment. It explained she was not eligible as she was not living in the property and receiving Working Age Council Tax Reduction. The Council also explained it believed it had applied the long-term empty premium correctly.
31. Miss X responded to the Council by email on 30 April. Miss X said she was not seeking an Exceptional Hardship Payment, but rather for the Council to waive the long-term empty premium. In other words, for the Council to exercise its discretion to grant a reduction.
32. The Council wrote to Miss X on 5 May to explain it felt it had applied the long-term empty premium correctly and, based on what it knew at that point, would not be making a discretionary reduction.
33. Miss X emailed the Council again on 14 August to reiterate her circumstances. Miss X explained she would be willing to pay council tax at the standard rate.
34. The Council responded to Miss X on 18 August. The Council explained it had applied the long-term empty premium correctly, but it may be able to reduce this under its discretionary reduction scheme. It explained Miss X would need to show she had a good reason for a discretionary reduction to apply.
35. Miss X emailed the Council on 7 October, using the address it had told her was no longer in use. Miss X’s email provided her reasoning for wanting a discretionary reduction and asked it to consider this.
36. On 20 November, Miss X completed the Council’s online form with the same content as her email of 7 October. Miss X then submitted another online form on 5 January 2021 to chase a response.
37. Miss X complained to the Council on 5 January as she was unhappy with the delays in considering her discretionary reduction application.
38. The Council wrote to Miss X on 1 February to refuse her application. The Council explained it would delay payment until the property was sold if Miss X could show she was marketing it. The Council told Miss X that if she disagreed with how it reached its decision, she should provide full details in writing.
39. The Council then responded to Miss X’s complaint on 17 February. It apologised for the delay and said this was partly due to awaiting the result of the discretionary reduction application. The Council accepted it had failed to keep Miss X updated on the progress of her application and there were delays in making a decision on this. The Council apologised to Miss X for that.
40. On 9 March, Miss X emailed the Council disagreeing with the result of the discretionary reduction application and its complaint response. Miss X asked who set the guidance for discretionary reductions and explained she felt her personal circumstances had not been properly considered. Miss X also explained she was in the process of having the house valued to market it as soon as she could.
41. The Council responded to Miss X on 12 March. The Council explained the guidance for considering discretionary reduction applications was set out in its own policies. It explained any reductions are discretionary and it had fully considered Miss X’s circumstances. The Council reminded Miss X she could have her complaint considered at stage two of its complaint procedure if she remained unhappy.
42. Miss X wrote to the Council on 17 March to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure. The Council wrote back the following day to explain the complaint had been escalated and it would try to respond by 1 April.
43. As Miss X received no response, she chased the Council on 4 May. The Council responded the following day to explain it would need Miss X to provide specific reasons for disagreeing with its original complaint response.
44. Miss X wrote to the Council on 11 May to explain she was asking it to escalate her complaint as she disagreed with its original response. The Council responded that day to tell Miss X it would need to know specifically what parts of its complaint response she disagreed with.
45. Miss X wrote to the Council on 23 May to explain she was disagreeing with its complaint response as she did not feel it considered her circumstances properly.
46. As she did not receive a response, Miss X chased the Council in July and September. The Council responded on 9 September to explain Miss X did not meet its criteria for an escalation to stage two of its complaint process. Miss X then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
47. We wrote to the Council asking if it had told Miss X about her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagreed with its decision not to grant a discretionary reduction. The Council then wrote to Miss X on 16 November explaining its decision was appealable.
48. I asked the Council where it publishes its discretionary reduction policy. The Council explained this is not on its website as it prefers to deal with requests as they come in. It said it was working on a discretionary reduction policy and this should be on its website by April 2022.

Analysis

49. The Council should have told Miss X of her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal when it communicated its decision to refuse her discretionary reduction application. It did not do this until nine months later, after we contacted it about the complaint. This is fault.
50. I cannot second guess the outcome of any appeal Miss X makes, but the delay in issuing referral rights would have caused extended uncertainty for her. Miss X had already told the Council she was going through a stressful time, and it ought to have been mindful of this when dealing with her requests.
51. For transparency, councils should publish their discretionary reductions policy so service users know which criteria it judges their applications against. Not doing this is fault by the Council. It means Miss X, and other service users, lack clarity on what to include in their discretionary reduction applications.
52. From the timeline set out above, there also appears to be fault in the way the Council communicated with Miss X. There were often periods of time where the Council did not keep Miss X updated or respond to her until chased. There was also no reason why the Council needed to delay answering Miss X’s complaint until her discretionary reduction application had been decided. In any case, it still took more than two weeks from the decision being made to answer the complaint. This is fault.
53. While it may not have changed the result of Miss X’s discretionary reduction application or complaint, this would have caused her added stress and uncertainty. Miss X had already told the Council of the stressful circumstances in her personal life, so it ought to have responded to her promptly to avoid adding to this.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. To remedy the injustice set out above, we recommended the Council:
55. Within one month:
• Provide Miss X with a written apology for the level of communication she received throughout this process and the uncertainty caused by not providing appeal rights promptly;
• Pay Miss X £100 to recognise the stress and uncertainty caused;
• Remind staff dealing with discretionary reduction applications of the need to let service users know about their rights of appeal and;
56. Within three months:
• Finalise its discretionary reduction policy and publish this on its website.
57. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

58. We find fault with the way the Council has communicated with Miss X and for not providing her appeal rights when it should have done. We also find fault with the Council for not having a published discretionary reduction policy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that we did not investigate

59. We did not investigate whether there was any fault in the Council’s decision to apply the long-term empty premium to Miss X’s council tax bill. We also did not investigate if there was fault in the way the Council decided to refuse Miss X’s application for a discretionary reduction. This is because Miss X could refer these matters to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman