Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of pursuing recovery action for duplicate council tax debts over a prolonged period of time due to errors by the Valuation Office in the registration of the property. We have found some fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mr B distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a symbolic payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Norwich City Council (the Council) failed to take effective action to correctly bill him for council tax on his current address since he moved in. The Council accepted that part of the property no longer existed but did not exercise discretion not to pursue recovery of this debt. This has caused Mr B significant distress and frustration over a prolonged period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. Every property has a council tax band. The Valuation Office, which is part of central government, decides which band a property is in. So we cannot investigate that decision. If someone wants to change their property’s council tax band they can apply to the Valuation Office. If this is refused, they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I cannot investigate the actions of the Valuation Office as it is a separate body independent of the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council Tax – discretion to write off

8. In exceptional circumstances, the law says councils can decide not to collect some or all of a council tax debt. (S13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended))

What happened

9. Mr B bought his property in October 2023. Previously part of the property had been run as a business and the other part as a home, so business rates were payable on part of the property. On moving in, Mr B received bills for business rates and council tax. He contacted the Council to inform it that the business no longer existed and the whole property was now a home.
10. The Council confirmed it had set up a new council tax account for the property and the business rates bill for the former business had been put on hold. It referred the case to the Valuation Office (VO) asking it to remove the business listing and revalue the whole property as a domestic dwelling.
11. In March 2024 the VO confirmed it had deleted the business entry and changed the banding of the property to Band E. But it had also introduced a new entry with the address of the former business from October 2023 with a Band F valuation. So, there were two listings for Mr B’s property both creating a liability for council tax.
12. The Council sent bills for council tax for both properties backdated to October 2023.
13. The Council visited the property in May 2024 and confirmed there was only one property (Mr B’s address) and the second address did not exist. The Council contacted the VO again asking it to correct the record and remove the second listing.
14. In October 2024 the Council issued a summons for the outstanding bill for the second ‘non-existent’ address. Mr B contacted the Council to query this bill. The Council said it had not heard anything since its email to the VO in May to correct the register. It emailed the VO again asking for urgent action to correct the records.
15. In November 2024 Mr B contacted the Council again as he had now received a liability order for the debt (almost £5,000) on the non-existent property. The Council wrote to Mr B to confirm it was holding recovery of the debt while it waited for the VO to correct the records. Mr B rang up again several weeks later to check the recovery was on hold as he had received a recovery letter. The Council confirmed that it was.
16. In March 2025 Mr B contacted the Council again as he had received a bill for the new financial year for the non-existent property. He requested recovery be put on hold until the matter was resolved. The person who took the call requested that the Council chase the VO again. No action was taken. Mr B’s wife contacted the Council in April 2025 to again request the bill be put on hold as they had received a reminder for the debt.
17. The Council confirmed the following day that further action was on hold. Mr B rang the Council to query what was happening. He said the VO had advised him it was for the Council to delete the additional entry.
18. The Council replied on 1 May 2025 clarifying that it would hold recovery action once it had obtained a liability order. Mr B made a formal complaint about the delay in resolving the matter.
19. The Council telephoned Mr B to acknowledge his complaint. It acknowledged that it was satisfied the second address did not exist, but the Council needed to obtain a liability order before it could hold recovery action. But then it would hold recovery for 6 months and chase the VO every month until the matter was resolved. Mr B requested his complaint be kept open until the VO corrected the register. The Council sent a letter to Mr B on 21 May 2025 confirming the discussion and said it could not keep the complaint open. Mr B said he did not receive this letter.
20. On 10 June the Council contacted Mr B to say the VO had updated the register and it was waiting for the details to come through. The following day Mr B contacted the Council as the VO website was showing the records had been amended: it had deleted both previous entries for Mr B’s address and replaced it with one new entry with the wrong address and a higher banding backdated to October 2023. Mr B was unhappy that the address was incorrect and the new one had a higher banding backdated to October 2023. The Council said it would ask the VO to change the address but reassured him that the Council was responsible for addresses and it had the correct address listed for his property.
21. Mr B was unhappy that the Council said he had to make a new complaint as he did not realise the previous one had been closed. He ended the call before the Council could advise him that he needed to appeal to the VO against the banding, the fault for the lengthy delay was due to the VO not the Council and the Council had to issue bills in line with the VO’s register.
22. Mr B submitted another complaint following the telephone call. He said:
• The Council had created a new incorrect record with the wrong address which would have knock-on implications for other services.
• The Council had not informed him that his previous complaint had been closed.
• The new bill reflecting the increased banding should not be backdated to October 2023.
23. The Council acknowledged the complaint on 11 June and said it was treating it as a stage one complaint. It responded in full on 30 June saying:
24. The Council had informed him by letter and during a telephone call that his previous complaint had been closed. It went through the events since October 2023 and confirmed that only one council tax account now remained for his property. All others had been closed, cancelled or deleted along with all recovery notices, summons and charges.
25. Mr B remained dissatisfied and so the Council considered his complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. It responded on 22 July attaching a copy of its letter of 21 May informing him that his complaint was closed. It confirmed that the VO was an independent government body and the Council has no jurisdiction over its decisions. The Council had correctly billed Mr B based on the information provided by the VO and he had to challenge any banding decision directly with the VO. It had asked the VO to correct the address in the recent listing, but it could not make that change itself.
26. Mr B also complained to us in June 2025.

Planning application

27. During this period Mr B had submitted a standard planning application for renovation work to the property as he believed the status of the property had been changed from commercial to residential. However, given the recent records showing a business at the property, the planning department said he needed to submit a new application including a change of use to residential only. This incurred extra costs for Mr B, which he felt the Council should refund. The Council refused, saying it was Mr B’s responsibility to find out the status of the property and he had not sought advice from the Council before submitting the first application.

Findings

28. It is clear that the delay in resolving this matter was due to the VO:
• it initially took five months to amend the register but did so incorrectly; and
• it then took 15 months to correct its mistake and still did so with an error in the address.
29. This was the main reason for Mr B’s injustice: the incorrect valuation register entries gave rise to double council tax bills for 20 months. I accept the Council has to act on the information contained in the VO register in terms of billing people for council tax. I also acknowledge the Council chased the VO, responded promptly to Mr B’s enquiries and agreed to hold recovery for most of the period of the complaint. In the context of recovering a normal council tax debt there was no fault.
30. However, I do not consider this was a normal case. Once it had visited the property in May 2024 and established that the second address did not exist, I consider this was likely an exceptional circumstance and the Council should have considered using its discretionary power under S13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to decide not to collect this debt from Mr B.
31. Mr B received summons and reminders, two liability orders and a notice of Enforcement Agent instruction and also had to contact the Council on many occasions to check that recovery was still on hold. This continued over a prolonged period. There is no evidence the Council considered using this power. The failure to do so was fault which caused Mr B distress and frustration for a further 12 months.
32. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions in terms of the planning issue. The status of a property in planning terms is not dependent solely on the valuation register and the Council was entitled to reach the view that a change of use application was required. There was no requirement for it to have reached this view before Mr B submitted the first standard application and Mr B did not seek advice on the matter.

Back to top

Action

33. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Mr B and makes a symbolic payment of £200.
34. The Council has agreed to the recommendation should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman