Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council applying an empty property premium for council tax. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal about its decision to the Valuation Tribunal which is the body who deals with these challenges. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the validity of the Council’s discretionary exemptions scheme because the law says this can only be challenged by way of judicial review.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council applying a 200% empty property premium for a house which he bought only 3 months after the sale. He says this is not in keeping with the government’s intention of the discretionary charging legislation. He also says his property is not currently fit for occupation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says he bought a property which had been empty for 21 months. 3 months after he was being charged full council tax for it, the charge was increased to 200%. The Council told him that the 2-year period for charging for an empty property at the normal rate had expired and now he was liable to pay the empty property premium which is 200%. This is in keeping with the Council’s policy on empty properties in its area and is similar to that used by most authorities in England. The charge is applied to the property, not the owner and is for a fixed period of vacancy ,even if the oner changes.
8. Mr X complained that the Council’s decision was unfair and not in the spirit of the legislation introduced by Government in 2012 which did not intend to penalise purchasers of homes. The Council says the scheme was adopted in 2013 when councils were given discretion to charge for empty properties and changed in 2019 when the law allowed them to charge higher premiums for empty property owners. The intention is to prevent council tax payers subsidising homes which are not in use in their area.
9. The Council gave Mr X information about how to make an appeal against the decision on his exemption request to the Valuation Tribunal. This is the body which considers challenges to decisions on liability and exemptions/discounts for council tax.
10. Mr X was also advised about his right to challenge the liability for tax due to the habitable condition of the dwelling with the Valuation Agency service and he has made a request to have it removed from taxation. Until any decision is made by the Agency, he remains liable for the tax he has not paid.
11. Neither the Ombudsman nor the Valuation Tribunal can investigate a complaint about the legality or viability of a discretionary policy on council tax setting for empty property. This is because the law says that any such challenges have to be made by way of judicial review in the High Court. For this reason we are unable to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council applying an empty property premium for council tax. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal about its decision to the Valuation Tribunal which is the body who deals with these challenges. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the validity of the Council’s discretionary exemptions scheme because the law says this can only be challenged by way of judicial review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman