Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a second home premium for council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal about the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation about other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not give enough notice of its decision to introduce a second home premium for council tax. He also says the premium should not apply to his property. He says the Council delayed responding and this caused him frustration and anxiety.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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. However, 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).
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2025 when it notified him it had added a second home council tax premium from April 2025 for a property he owned. He said the property was essentially an extension to his home.
7. Mr X then complained in February and April 2025 that Council had not provided enough notice of the new charge. He had not seen the notice in a local paper in March 2024 as he did not live in the area, and he could not afford it.
8. The Council replied in April 2025 that the only notice required by legislation was a notice placed in a local paper which it did in March 2024. However, it said it had also publicised the change and had written to individual owners. It explained the exceptions to the premium.
9. Mr X complained further in April that the Council failed to engage with him and had not given enough notice to enable him to sell or rent out the property. He requested a discretionary reduction in the council tax.
10. The Council replied in September 2025 apologising for its delay. It provided information about applying for a discretionary reduction. It also explained the reasons why it did not agree Mr X’s property was an annexe and therefore the second home premium applied. It provided information about appealing to the Valuation Tribunal.
11. It is reasonable to have expected Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision.
12. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council because it set out the information it provided to second home owners in advance regarding its decision which was in accordance with legislation. It also wrote to individual owners. The Council provided information to Mr X about applying for a discretionary reduction.
13. While there was delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s second complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect him to appeal, and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation regarding other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman