Summary: Mrs H complains the Council allowed her application for a disability band reduction on her council tax, but later said it had made an error and she did not qualify for a reduction. But she had reasons why the Council’s decision was wrong. Our decision is there was fault in how the Council carried out the first assessment. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. My summary of the complaint by Mrs H is that:
• she applied for a disability band reduction on her council tax. The Council allowed the reduction; but
• later the Council said it had made an error and she did not qualify for a reduction, as her home was purpose built as a disabled flat. But that ignored that social services had applied to have her bath removed and a walk-in shower installed. So the flat had been adapted.

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. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. 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

6. I have not investigated whether the Council is correct to say Mrs H is not entitled to a disability band reduction. Parliament has created the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal in situations such as this. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. The Ombudsman can only make recommendations. It would be reasonable for Mrs H to make an appeal to the Tribunal in this case. Therefore I have not investigated that part of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. My investigation has considered Mrs H’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I sent my draft decision to Mrs H and the Council and invited them to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

8. Council tax is a tax made on domestic properties. Councils issue one bill to each household. Residents of dwellings, including tenants, are usually liable for council tax from the date they moved into the property. Liability is by bands.
9. If a property is occupied by someone defined as disabled (the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992 SI 554) and there have been adaptations to the property to assist them, they are charged as if they are in one band lower (so if in Band H charged at Band G).
10. To qualify for a disability band reduction, a property must fall into one of the following categories:
• a room predominantly used by and required for meeting the needs of the qualifying individual;
• an additional bathroom which has been added/adapted for and required to meet the needs of the qualifying resident; or
• sufficient indoor floor space for the use of a wheelchair.

What happened

11. Mrs H has lived in her flat for many years. It is a purpose built for people with disabilities. Mrs H says around thirty years ago, social services applied to have her bath removed and a walk-in shower installed.
12. In 2020 Mrs H applied for disability band reduction on her council tax. After a visit from one of its revenues officers, the Council awarded the reduction and backdated it to 2018.
13. In April 2023, Mrs H submitted an on-line form, as she wanted her disability band reduction backdated to an earlier date. In it she noted she had lived in her flat for over 30 years, and it was purpose built to house a disabled person. She asked the Council to explain why it had not backdated the reduction to an earlier date.
14. In August, the Council removed Mrs H’s disability band reduction, back to 2018, leaving her with an increased balance on her council tax account.
15. In September Mrs H complained. A day after Mrs H’s complaint the Council says it sent her a revised council tax bill. This notified Mrs H of the removal of the disability band reduction. The reverse of the bill had information about what Mrs H could do if she disagreed with the information, including her appeal rights.
16. In October the Council responded to Mrs H’s complaint. It apologised it had not written to her separately to her bill to explain what had happened. It offered her the chance to spread her debt out over instalments.
17. Mrs H escalated her complaint. The Council’s second response explained that:
• she should not have been awarded a disability band reduction as her home did not meet any of qualifying criteria. That was because it was purpose built, not adapted.
• Its inspecting officer ‘assumed’ ‘in good faith’ she had met criteria and had overlooked that the property was purpose built.
• It offered to reset payments.
18. In November 2023 Mrs H noted to the Council the property was adapted, as she had had her bath removed and a shower fitted by the Council due to her disability.
19. Mrs H complained to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries, the Council advised:
• if planning, contractors or the Valuation Office Agency tell it about purpose-built flats for disabled residents then it enters a note on its system. Otherwise it would not know;
• about the September 2023 revised bill;
• that it had not signposted Mrs H to the Valuation Tribunal during its complaint responses.

Analysis

20. One of the reasons we investigated this complaint as we were unsure if the Council had notified Mrs H of her appeal rights. In response to my enquiries the Council told me that it sent Mrs H a revised bill in September 2023, which did contain appeal information.
21. It would have been better in its complaint responses if the Council had signposted Mrs H to her appeal rights, as she does not seem to have understood them. But I cannot say that amounted to administrative fault.
22. The Council’s says its officers would not know a property had been purpose built for disabled people. But, given this is an important part in deciding eligibility for the reduction, I would have expected the Council to have had processes in place to check this issue. My decision is to have not done more to do this in the first assessment was fault. For example the Council does not seem to have asked Mrs H about this – given her later application, she would have likely given this information, if asked.
23. Mrs H says her property was adapted many years ago. I do not have the knowledge of caselaw around the council tax scheme to know if this means she should qualify for a disability band reduction. Mrs H should take that matter up with the Valuation Tribunal Service.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. The Council has agreed that, within one month of my decision, it will:
• write to Mrs H apologising for the fault I have identified; and
• make Mrs H a symbolic payment of £250 for distress the error in the initial assessment will have caused her.
25. The Council has agreed, within three months of my decision it will complete a review to identify a way to ensure that, when assessing an application for a disability band reduction to a council tax account, it can check whether a property has been adapted. It should then report back to the Ombudsman about changes it proposes to make.

Back to top

Final decision

26. 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