Summary: We found fault on Mr S’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a Landlord Property Improvement Grant. There were periods of delay, a failure to keep him updated, and a failure to exercise discretion to waive the Long-Term Empty Premium for one period. This cost him financially. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr S complains the Council:
1. delayed processing his application for financial help under its Landlord Property Improvement Grant for the second property he owns which meant the property remained empty for several years; and
2. refused to waive the Long-Term Empty Premium added to his council tax account between 2021/2022 and 2022/2023.
2. As a result, he suffered financial loss as not only was he wrongly charged £1,029.65 but, his property was not let for several years, and it refused to refund surveyor’s fees which it had previously agreed to do.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. While Mr S could have appealed the Council’s decision about liability for the Long-Term Empty Premium to the Valuation Tribunal, which would mean it was not in our jurisdiction, there is no evidence he was told about this right. For this reason, I considered this part of his complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information Mr S sent, along with the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr S and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

The law: Long Term Empty Premium (Council Tax)

9. For any financial year, a billing authority in England may decide to charge a premium on properties that have been unoccupied and unfurnished for two years or more. (section 11B, The Local Government Finance Act 1992)

Council: Council Tax Premium on Empty Homes

10. A property left unfurnished for two years or more will be charged a Long-Term Empty Premium charge (the premium). From April 2019, the extra charge increased to 100% which means liability for 200% of the full council tax for the property.
11. To end the charge, the property must be brought back into use.

What happened

12. Mr S owned a property he claimed remained empty because of Council delays when dealing with his application for a Landlord Property Improvement Grant (the grant). He claimed the Council failed to deal with his grant application properly or promptly.
13. In 2019, Mr S applied for a grant under which he would lease the house to the Council for three years. In return, the grant would allow necessary works done on it up to £15,000. As he failed to complete and return documents, and after chasing Mr S, the Council closed the case.
14. In 2020, Mr S reapplied but was told in June property inspections were suspended due to COVID-19 restrictions. He applied to have the works done through an agency arrangement. This meant the Council, not Mr S, would be responsible for choosing the contractor and ensuring works were done.
15. An inspection was done the following month and a schedule of works was higher than the £15,000 grant limit. The Council approved the grant, but Mr S wanted another inspection. The inspector decided it was not necessary after considering his concerns.
16. Mr S then decided to progress on a non-agency basis which meant he would now be responsible for finding contractors and overseeing the works. The Council advised him about this as an option following him disputing costs and works set out in the schedule of works. The Council issued the non-agency approval in October, and he signed and returned a slip confirming he understood it.
17. In November, the Council issued a variation order explaining the need for valid invoices/receipts for the works and about the need to inspect before making payment. These were not received from Mr S. The Council could not consider payments because no work was done or invoiced. The grant conditions were not followed.
18. An officer advised Mr S to make sure the property details were updated on the council tax records. This was because the details said the property was occupied when it was not.
19. The same month, Mr S asked about increasing the financial size of the grant. The Council surveyor said he would need to see quotes to consider it. Mr S provided the quotes, and the Council increased the grant amount. The Council told Mr S the grant would be issued when all works were properly invoiced, completed, and inspected. Mr S then disputed the schedule of works. Following further advice from the Council about proper invoicing, he returned a financial acceptance form.
20. The Council heard nothing further from Mr S until April 2021 when he told the Council he had been ill and needed to shield. He asked for a one-year extension to do the works. An extension was granted to August and later to November.
21. In May, Mr S asked to go to an agency agreement for the works and a contractor was chosen the same month. The Council said the contractor reported difficulties contacting Mr S with last minute cancellations of appointments and requests for quotes for works which did not proceed. It provided a copy of an email it received from the contractor in 2023. It received this after asking the contractor to provide his recollection of dealings with Mr S following a formal complaint.
22. The contractor was allocated the case in May. He outlined the problems he had with Mr S. These included: finding Mr S hard to pin down for an inspection; cancellations at the last minute of arranged visits; revisiting the property; telling him he wanted the contractor to only do some of the works and transferring other work to himself; delays by Mr S before he got back in touch and then sending another quote to which Mr S did not respond. The contractor said he had wasted weeks on calls and meetings with Mr S. He said he was ‘mucked about’ by Mr S who never gave him any idea he was going to proceed with the works. The contractor’s email did not give a timescale over which he experienced problems with Mr S.
23. In June, the Council told Mr S the contractor had been trying to contact him about the works. The contractor met Mr S twice and gave a quote but told the Council he thought it unlikely Mr S would proceed.
24. In September, the Council apologised to Mr S for the delay. The surveyor was now back at work but had a high caseload and would arrange to contact him to discuss any issues with the works.
25. In March 2022, the Council told Mr S the contractor was now booked up until September, but another contractor should be allocated to do the works instead. It asked Mr S to provide details of any works completed.
26. As it had no further contact from Mr S, the Council closed the case in June and understood he sold the property in September.
27. In September, the Council wrote to Mr S in response to an email he sent in June, a copy of which I have not seen. This explained he had already been notified of his right to appeal directly to the Valuation Office. Officers did not agree his property should be removed from banding. Nor did it consider it was uninhabitable. Although it referred to its power to charge premiums for Long Term Empty properties, it did not explain he had the right to challenge this to the Valuation Tribunal.
28. The Council accepted there were some delays between June 2021 and March 2022, but some were caused by the contractor being unable to clarify the work schedule with Mr S.
29. As a result of the Council delays, it charged the premium to his account for the property remaining empty for more than two years for the periods:

• Period A): 17 February 2022 to 31 March 2022 amounting to £171.74; and
• Period B): 1 April 2022 to 23 October 2022 amounting to £857.91.

30. Apart from wrongly charging him these premiums, Mr S also complained he lost rental income for the property over several years. This caused hardship as he still had to meet loan repayments and other bills for the property.
31. He believed the Council failed to review his challenge properly.
32. The Council accepted there were delays but provided him with a payment of £1,921.10 in compensation credited to his council tax account. This was an increased offer following Mr S asking it to consider paying this amount for the delays, the distress caused, and the property remaining empty.
33. It maintained the premium added was legitimate and it had no discretion to remove it. Discretionary council tax relief was paid in exceptional circumstances but to consider it, the Council needed a completed Standard Financial Statement. Mr S failed to complete one, although I have seen evidence of him being told to contact an officer about it.

My findings

Complaint a): delayed processing Grant application

34. I found fault on this complaint because:

• in September 2021, the Council apologised for delays;
• it also explained the surveyor had returned to work but while he had a high caseload, would arrange to contact him to discuss the works;
• there was no evidence of what was happening between September 2021 and March 2022 when the Council alerted Mr S to the long waiting list for the appointed contractor;
• there was nothing to show the Council kept Mr S updated about progress, or lack of progress, during this period;
• there was no evidence of the Council taking steps to appoint another contractor as it said it would; and
• while the Council provided evidence from the contractor involved from May 2021, which confirmed Mr S had some responsibility for a lack of progress, this was obtained about two years later following his formal complaint. There was no contemporaneous record or evidence supporting what the Council claimed made at the time. Nor did the contractor’s email set out the period involved although the starting period ran from May 2021. I considered the above factors when deciding what weight to give the email.

35. I am satisfied the fault found caused Mr S an injustice. This caused distress in the form of lost opportunity to progress works, uncertainty as to what was happening, and frustration. Mr S has some responsibility for the injustice he experienced due to the account set out in the contractor’s email. In addition, when considering Mr S’s injustice, I also took account of the payment the Council already made to him.
36. I found no fault on his complaint about the Council refusing to refund surveyor’s fees. There was no evidence of Mr S paying surveyor’s fees, asking the Council for a refund, or of any agreement between them about refunding this payment. The Council confirmed Mr S made no payment for surveyor’s fees.

Complaint b): refusal to waive Long Term Empty Premium

37. I make the following findings:
1. I found no evidence of the Council telling Mr S about his right to appeal the decision about the premium. Mr S had the right to appeal the premium to the Valuation Tribunal. The Tribunal deals with appeals against council decisions on council tax liability, which includes appeals about the premium. The Council said it acted according to the law and information about his right of appeal was given correctly. It said all appeals about discounts, exemptions, banding, and premiums are to the Valuation Tribunal. While correct, there is no evidence showing it advised Mr S of this right. The only reference I saw to appeals was in its letter to him of 9 September 2022. This referred to his right to appeal to the Valuation Office about banding.
2. I am satisfied this failure to tell him about this appeal right caused an injustice to Mr S as he lost the opportunity to use it.
3. I am satisfied Mr S was told about the right to ask the Council to exercise its discretion to reduce the council tax payable in exceptional circumstances. He was told he needed to complete and return a Standard Financial Statement which considered his income and capital against expenditure. He was told to contact an officer if he wished to apply. He failed to do so. I found no fault on this complaint.
4. I found fault with the Council’s decision not to waive the premium for Period A. This was because this was within the period of delay it itself identified. It failed to consider whether this should be applied or not.
5. This caused Mr S an injustice. He lost the opportunity to have this considered properly.
38. On balance, I am not satisfied the fault found on both complaints caused an injustice which included financial loss through his inability to rent the property out. This was because I consider it too speculative. The works, had they been done, would have taken time. Mr S may well have changed his mind about renting the property out and may not have pursued it when works were done. In reaching this view, I note for example that he sold the property in 2022 anyway. He may also have benefited from a property value increase during this period of delay too.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. I considered our guidance on remedies in addition to the payment of £1,921.10 the Council made to Mr S which was an amount he asked it to pay to remedy the delays, the distress caused him, and having an empty property longer than necessary. I also considered the contractor’s evidence about his dealings with Mr S.
40. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. To send Mr S a written apology for failing to: ensure there were no delays with the processing of his case and the agency arrangements; keep him updated about progress or lack of; show what steps it took to appoint an alternative contractor; consider exercising its discretion to reduce premium charges payable.
2. Ensure information about the right to appeal Long Term Empty Premium decisions is given on all accounts where it is applied.
3. Refund £85.87 of the Long Term Empty Premium charge for period A.
41. The Council also agreed to take the following action within eight weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Review why the delays took place and take steps to ensure they cannot be repeated on future cases.
2. Take steps to ensure applicants are updated and kept informed about progress on their Grant applications and works where agency arrangements exist.
3. Ensure officers take account of any period of delay caused by the Council through the Grant process when considering requests for waivers of the Long Term Empty Premium charge.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I found the following on Mr S’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman