Summary: Mrs P complains the Council took enforcement action for council tax on a property that was owned by her late husband, not her. We uphold the complaint because of some delay by the Council in acting on information Mrs P gave it. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs P, complains the Council took enforcement action against her for council tax on a property she did not own.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated whether the Council’s decision on the property’s liability for council tax was correct. The Valuation Tribunal is a tribunal that can consider a dispute about any calculation by a council of how much council tax someone should pay. Therefore the restriction described in paragraph 3 applies.
6. The Valuation Tribunal has the expertise to consider the various decisions about council tax entitlement. It also has the power to say how much council tax the property’s account owes. The Ombudsman can only make recommendations. For these reasons, I consider it reasonable to expect Mrs P to use her right to appeal (as the person who the property was left to in the will) to resolve any remaining dispute about how much council tax the Council should levy on the property.
7. There have been issues with who the Council was treating as liable for the account. This is what I have investigated.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. In investigating this complaint I have considered Mrs P’s complaint to the Council and to the Ombudsman. I have considered information both Mrs P and the Council sent us.
9. I sent my draft decision to Mrs P and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

10. Council tax is a tax made on domestic properties. Councils issue one bill to each household. Residents of dwellings are usually liable for council tax from the date they moved into the property. If a private rented property is unoccupied, liability for council tax passes to the owner.

What happened

Background

11. Mrs P says that around 2018 she advised the Council she would be dealing with a property her husband owned (this property was not their main home). She says the Council started issuing council tax demands in her name. At that time they were renting out the property.

2021

12. Around March 2021 the tenants moved out, so the owners became liable for the council tax for the property. The Council has sent us its records that show that from May 2021 it was issuing council tax bills for the property in Mr and Mrs P’s joint names.
13. Mrs P says every time she contacted the Council she told it her husband was the owner of the property. She has sent me an email exchange from August 2021. In it, the Council’s council tax team emailed Mrs P asking for some information about an ex-tenant. Mrs P responded to that request and added: “I would be grateful if you would kindly write to the owner of the property Mr [P]”. She also noted the property was being sold.

2023

14. In February 2023 Mr P passed away. At the beginning of March, Mrs P sent the Council’s council tax team a copy of his death certificate.
15. Shortly after this, the Council automatically sent Mr and Mrs P a council tax bill for the new financial year. A note on the account from shortly after this noted Mr P had passed away and it should remove him from the account.
16. At the end of April, Mrs P sent the Council a letter advising the property was “…in the name of Mr [P]” and noting he had passed away. It asked the Council to reply to her.
17. In mid-May the Council issued a final notice for the account. The notice was addressed to Mrs P. Mrs P telephoned the Council and it put enforcement action on hold for four weeks.
18. At the end of the four weeks the Council issued a summons for non-payment of the council tax. Mrs P emailed the Council on receipt of the summons. She said she had previously advised the Council the estate had gone to probate. She noted she had offered to make payments from her own benefits and pension. She added her understanding was the agreement had been to hold action for two months. She asked to complain.
19. In early July the Council responded to Mrs P’s complaint. It advised:
• Mrs P was a joint owner of the property with Mr P. After he passed away, the account was solely in her name;
• the rules treated properties differently if they were not a person’s main home;
• it offered to send bills directly to the solicitor dealing with probate;
• it placed the account on hold for a further month.
20. At the end of the four weeks hold on action, the court granted a liability order on the account.
21. Around two weeks later Mrs P emailed the Council, noting the property was in Mr P’s name and she was the executor of the estate. She gave the Council the solicitor’s details and noted selling the property could not proceed until they had probate. She asked why the Council had not responded to her offer of payment, which she had made despite the fact she was not liable. Shortly after Mrs P telephoned the Council to advise again she was not the owner.
22. The Council put a hold on the account for two months and changed the liable party to the executors of Mr P’s estate.
23. Around two weeks later, in early September, the court granted probate.
24. At the end of September, the Council responded at the second stage of its complaint procedure. It advised:
• its view was it had acted on the information it had available in making Mr and Mrs P joint owners;
• it had changed ownership after Mrs P’s August contact, after checking with the Land Registry;
• it apologised.
25. In early October the Council emailed Mrs P to clarify it was not expecting payments from her. The bills were being sent to the executor of the estate and it would recover the money owed from the estate. It again offered to contact the solicitors directly. And it offered Mrs P the option of signing a letter of understanding, committing to pay the outstanding bill from the proceeds of the sale of the property.
26. The Council issued reminders for payment in November 2023 and January 2024. Mrs P made a new complaint that the Council was making these demands, despite knowing the estate was just out of probate. After Mrs P complained to the Ombudsman, the Council agreed to put the account on hold. It also agreed to withdraw the summons.
27. The Council emailed Mrs P advising the summons had been withdrawn. It advised her she must keep in touch and asked her to provide the solicitor’s details so it could set up a letter of undertaking to take the proceeds from the sale of the property. The Council says Mrs P replied to update on the sale of the property and advised she would not provide a letter of undertaking.

Analysis

28. At the latest, Mrs P told the Council that the property was owned by Mr P in 2021. The Council did not act on that information (sought further clarification from Mrs P). It had already set up the council tax account for the property in joint names and continued to do so. Mr and Mrs P continued to pay the bills for the joint account. My decision is not acting on the information was fault. But any injustice from this is lessened by the fact that Mr and Mrs P did complain earlier about the Council’s inaction over this matter.
29. After Mr P passed away Mrs P told the Council. The Council changed the property’s council tax liability to Mrs P’s sole name. Given how it had been billing for several years, that was understandable.
30. But at the end of April, Mrs P again told the Council the property had been solely owned by her husband. It took until August before the Council changed the status of the account. My decision is the Council could have earlier clarified Mrs P’s April information, either with her or with the Land Registry. So that avoidable delay was fault.
31. The period of injustice is from April 2023, when Mrs P told the Council again about the ownership, until August when the Council changed the liability for the property.
32. The faults I have identified will have caused Mrs P some unnecessary extra distress at what would always have been a distressing time for her. If the Council had acted without fault it would have likely not taken the enforcement action on the account. It has now withdrawn the summons. But receiving the correspondence, summons and liability order likely cause avoidable distress. She also made an offer of payment she would not have had to make, but for the fault.
33. In the absence of any decision to the contrary from the Tribunal, the council tax debt is correctly outstanding and still due. So I cannot fault the Council for continuing to take recovery action after the court granted probate.
34. But, given the circumstances of Mrs P’s contacts, both before and after probate, I would have expected the Council to have explored with her whether she met any definition its debt recovery policy has about vulnerable debtors. And taking any information from her about this into account in negotiating repayments. It does not seem to have done this which was fault.

Back to top

Recommended action

35. I recommended that, within one month of my final decision, the Council:
• write to Mrs P apologising for the fault I have identified:

• make Mrs P a symbolic payment of £300 as a recognition of the avoidable distress the faults caused her. The council tax debt has not been settled. But it would not be appropriate for the council to deduct £300 from what is owed, as it is intended as a payment for an injustice. It should pay Mrs P for the injustice and proceed to discuss with her repayment of the debt;
• given the change of circumstances of having completed a complaint to the Ombudsman, I recommended the Council contact Mrs P again to discuss with her the options for recovery of the debt. This conversation should include exploring any reasons Mrs P might fit into any definition the Council uses regarding vulnerable debtors.

36. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman