Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to designate a property as a House of Multiple Occupation for council tax. This is because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, he can complain to the Information Commissioner about his Subject Access Request.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council harassed him regarding a property it wrongly designated as a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). The events caused stress and affected his health. Mr X also complains about the Council’s response to the Subject Access Request (SAR). Mr X wants compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the tribunal decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X owned a property which he rented to two tenants. The Council decided the flat was an HMO for council tax purposes. The landlord, not the tenant, is responsible for the council tax in an HMO.
7. Mr X challenged the decision. In March 2018 the Council issued its appeal decision confirming the flat is an HMO. The Council notified Mr X of his appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council sent the letter to the flat rather than to Mr X’s address.
8. In 2021 the Valuation Tribunal accepted a late appeal from Mr X. The tribunal was due to hear the appeal in 2022 but this was delayed until 2024 because Mr X asked for postponements.
9. In the meantime the Council asked for payment of the council tax. The Council explained that appellants are required to pay the council tax pending an appeal to the tribunal. This is explained on the tribunal’s website.
10. In 2024 the tribunal upheld the appeal and decided the flat is not an HMO. The tribunal panel said they did not agree with the Council’s interpretation of the legislation.
11. The Council withdrew all the recovery action, deleted the account, and issued a refund form.
12. Mr X complained and asked for compensation. He said the Council had relentlessly harassed him since 2017 and there had been an impact on his health. He said the Council ignored the legislation which showed the flat is not a HMO. He made a SAR request which he says the Council failed to comply with.
13. The Council decided not to pay compensation. It explained the duration for which Mr X was liable for the council tax was partly due to his requests to postpone the tribunal hearing. It also explained that it had told him he was required to pay pending an appeal. The Council issued two responses to his SAR.
14. I cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. The law says we cannot investigate any matter that has been the subject of an appeal to the tribunal. This restriction applies even if the tribunal does not provide the whole remedy the appellant may want (in this case, compensation). The key issue is whether the Council was correct to designate the flat as an HMO and this dispute has been resolved by the tribunal leading to the deletion of the account and a refund. If parliament had wanted to provide grounds for compensation for successful appeals then this would have been included as part of the tribunal system; but there is no provision for compensation.
15. I will not investigate Mr X’s dissatisfaction with his SAR because he can complain to the ICO. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the correct body to consider disputes about SARs.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and he can complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman