Summary: We will not investigate this council tax error following a death because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council wrongly applied the class F exemption to a property following the death of the resident. Mr X is involved in his capacity as an executor and relative. Mr X wants the Council to remove the council tax from March 2020 to July 2024 and pay compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y was resident in a property until his death in March 2020. The Council wrongly awarded the council tax class F exemption; if applicable, this exemption means no council tax is payable for up to six months after the award of probate.
6. The Council realised its mistake in 2024 and issued adjusted council tax bills from March 2020 for about £15,000.
7. There was a court case in August 2023 in relation to a will. Control of the property was passed to Mr X at this point. The property was sold in July 2024.
8. Mr X appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and said the property was eligible for the class F or class G exemption from March 2020 to July 2024. If awarded this would have meant there was no council tax to pay. The tribunal dismissed the appeal and said no exemption was applicable.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. In response, the Council said it should not have awarded the class F exemption. It made a discretionary decision to waive the council tax from March 2020 to August 2023 (the date of the court decision). This reduced the council tax to about £3,500. The Council said it was a complex case but said it provided training to staff to prevent the error being repeated.
10. Mr X is dissatisfied with the response. He wants the Council to remove the council tax until July 2024 or at least until June 2024, which is six months after probate was awarded in December 2023.
11. The law says we cannot investigate any matter which has been considered by the tribunal. This means I cannot comment on the decision not to award an exemption.
12. I can consider the decision to waive some of the council tax. However, I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the error and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. If the Council had not made the error Mr X, or the estate, would have been liable for the council tax from March 2020 to July 2024. But, the Council reduced the charge to about £3500 which is a significant reduction and enough to remedy any injustice, including Mr X’s time and trouble. Mr X says he would have rented or sold the property sooner had the exemption not been awarded but given the complexity of the case, the court case, and involvement of other people, it is far from clear that the property would have sold/rented sooner than it was.
13. The Council decided to waive the charge until the date of court case. There is no reason to question that date, not least because of the size of the reduction. The ‘six month from probate rule’ does not apply because class F does not apply.
14. The property was liable for council tax but, following an error, the Council reduced the bill by about £11,500 and provided staff training. This is a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman