Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax liability. This is because he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about his liability. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation into the other parts of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider whether he was liable for council tax for his emergency accommodation. He says the Council did not consider his circumstances and his household vulnerability. This has caused him anxiety and financial hardship.

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.
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.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).

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. Mr X complained he should not be liable for council tax because his flat was small and overcrowded as he lived with his child. He said the Council should not charge council tax as it was emergency accommodation it had provided. He said the property was a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and not self-contained because he had to share washing machine facilities. Mr X said the Council’s decision led to emotional distress and financial hardship.
8. In its responses the Council said the Valuation Office Agency had listed Mr X’s flat as a separate habitable dwelling. The Council said the property was not an HMO. Mr X was the tenant and the liable person. It said the lack of a washing machine did not mean the flat was not self contained. The Council noted Mr X complained the Council had not considered the impact on him and the hardship caused. It advised it had granted a single person discount, council tax support and a discretionary reduction in his council tax.
9. The Council said Mr X could appeal its liability decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
10. I consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the Council’s decision he is liable for council tax.
11. The Council has considered Mr X’s circumstances and reduced his council tax with a discount, a council tax support and a further reduction under the Council’s hardship scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation.
12. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to him about his council tax liability from February 2024. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025.
13. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman regarding the Council’s delay is late because it is more than 12 months since he became aware of the matter. I do not consider there are good reasons for this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about his council tax liability. There is insufficient evidence of fault regarding other aspects of Mr X’s complaint to warrant investigation. Part of Mr X’s complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman