Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax charged on an empty property. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has charged the council tax premium for a property that was uninhabitable and unoccupied. He says the Council’s website was misleading. Mr X wants the council tax charge removed and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability. This includes appeals about exemptions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law allows councils to charge extra council tax (a premium) on properties that have been empty and unoccupied for two years. Change of ownership does not affect the period of non-occupation.
7. Mr X bought a property at auction in 2021. He later found out it had been used as a drugs farm. Mr X says the property was badly damaged and had no water or useable lighting. He applied to the Valuation Office (VOA), which is not part of the Council, to have the property removed from council tax due to its condition. The VOA did not de-list the property. Mr X sold the property in 2022, having never lived in it. One of the reasons he did not live there was because he was caring for a relative.
8. The Council charged council tax for the period Mr X owned the property. The charge includes the premium because the house had been empty before Mr X bought it. Mr X owes £3659 and the Council obtained a liability order in 2022. A liability order is a court order confirming the person must pay the council tax.
9. Mr X complained. He said the period prior to him buying the property should not count for the period of non-occupation because it was illegally occupied. He said the website had indicated he would not have to pay because he, as the person who would normally pay council tax, was living elsewhere as a carer. Mr X also claimed the single person discount.
10. The Council said the wording on the website could have been clearer but said Mr X did not qualify for a Class J exemption as a carer because the property was never his main residence. It explained it could only apply a Class G exemption if Mr X provided evidence that occupation of the property had been prohibited by law. The Council said the previous use for drugs was not evidence that occupation was prohibited. The Council said Mr X was not eligible for the single person discount because he has not lived in the property as his main home. The Council signposted Mr X to the Valuation Tribunal and said it would lift the hold on recovery action. The Council told me Mr X has not provided evidence that occupation was prohibited by law and it has no evidence he has appealed to the tribunal.
11. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal if he disagreed he was not entitled to any of the exemptions or that he should be charged council tax at the premium rate. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider appeals about council tax charges and exemptions.
12. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The information on the website could have been clearer but Mr X can appeal if he remains of the view that he is entitled to an exemption due to caring responsibilities. And, given that Mr X has argued the property was uninhabitable due to disrepair, it seems unlikely he would have lived in the property as his main residence before becoming a carer.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman