Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending letters about council tax liability to an empty property owned by Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council sending him a council demand and then further letters to a property which he inherited but which remains empty at present. He says he contacted the Council after the first letter and further letters to the property caused him upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he inherited a property from his parents in 2023. In March 2024 he found a council tax demand in the empty property reminding him he was liable from February for payment. He says the Council had his forwarding address and the bill should have bene addressed to him earlier. He contacted the Council about making payment arrangements. When he visited the property again there were further letters in April and June, after he had paid in April.
6. The Council says the demands were sent to the property for which he is registered as the owner. He made payment after the second automatic reminder was issued and the balance was nil. The further correspondence which Mr X referred to was not a council tax demand but a check on occupation carried out by contractors working for the Council. Councils have a duty to check if properties are unoccupied and can charge a higher level of tax for those which are after a certain time period.
7. Mr X was upset by the letter suggesting that if he did not make contact to confirm occupancy the property may be visited and that there was a penalty for giving false or incorrect information about occupation. These statements are statements of fact which the Council has to provide to owners about occupation and powers to ensure that the correct council tax rate is being paid.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case Mr X is the owner of the property in question and he did receive the letters sent to it. The Council did not issue a summons for non-payment and he was able to pay the demand for that year. The letters related to occupancy were correctly addressed to the owner/occupier and were to determine if the property was occupied. The content which Mr X found threatening was factual information included to reduce the likelihood of intentional/unintentional misinformation avoiding the increased empty property tax which will be due in future.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending letters about council tax liability to an empty property owned by Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman