Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax for a property which is uninhabitable. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for an investigation, Mr X can appeal to a tribunal about the uninhabitable decision and there is not enough injustice regarding later complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to assist him when his property became uninhabitable. He said it delayed responding and continued to seek recovery of council tax arrears. This caused him distress and anxiety.
2. Mr X also complains the Council sent contradictory and incorrect information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)).

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended).
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In March 2025 Mr X applied to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to remove his property from the council tax listing from late 2024 because it was uninhabitable.
8. However, Mr X says the Council did not assist him while he waited for the VOA decision because it:
• Did not inspect the property until June despite being aware in January 2025.
• Continued recovery action with agents who sent threatening letters.
• Promised to withdraw the account from enforcement agents, but the agents sent a threatening letter and added fees the same day.
• Told him he owed council tax for another property which was incorrect.
9. In its complaint responses the Council replied that
• It was not required to visit and inspect a property as the VOA was responsible. However, it had visited and considered the property was uninhabitable
• It was not required to hold recovery action while the VOA made a decision. However, it agreed to hold action regarding the current year for three months, and then review this.
• Mr X had older council tax arrears for periods before the house became uninhabitable. This account properly remained with enforcement agents.
• It later advised it would hold recovery action for the older arrears. However, its agent sent a notice the same day adding costs for a visit. It apologised for this.
• It referred to a wrong address for him due to a typo. It apologised for this.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of council tax recovery while Mr X was waiting for the VOA to delist his property. Councils are not required to inspect properties or hold recovery as the council tax remains payable until the VOA’s decision. As a goodwill gesture, the Council agreed to hold recovery of the current year. It then withdrew the earlier account from its enforcement agent.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the VOA’s decision.
12. The Council accepted it made an error in a letter regarding Mr X’s address for which it apologised. It said its agent sent an automated letter the same day as it agreed to hold recovery. It apologised for this and said this was a cross over in process, and no costs had been added. The injustice here is not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the VOA’s decision, and later issues have not caused significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman