Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication regarding a second home council tax premium. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. There is not enough evidence of fault in other matters to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled communications about a council tax second home premium. He says the Council was unhelpful and unsympathetic in its consideration of his circumstances and the difficulties with preparing the property for sale. He complains there were significant delays by the Council in responding.
2. He also says the Council
• Said it could not waive or reduce his council tax when did have this power.
• withdrew its offer not to apply the premium from April 2025.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

4. 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)
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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied noting Mr X’s personal circumstances, his difficulty in clearing the house and potential problems in selling it. It explained the reasons for the second homes premium and the exceptions that could apply if Mr X put the property up for sale or to let. It also said if he cleared the property of furniture, it could apply a three month discount and then charge nine months at the standard rate. It referred his details to its Empty Homes team.
9. The Council apologised for its three month delay in replying to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its procedure. It also apologised for its delay of five weeks in sending a copy of its stage two response which it failed to send as intended.
10. The Council said in its stage one complaint response it could not waive the premium in individual circumstances. However, it confirmed in its stage two response that it had considered its discretionary power to reduce Mr X’s council tax, but concluded there was no compelling reason to do so. The Council gave Mr X details how to appeal its decision not to use its discretionary power to reduce his council tax and its decision to apply the premium.
11. I consider the injustice due to the Council delay in responding to complaint and its delay in considering a discretionary reduction is significant enough to warrant investigation. I note that the Council has apologised for delays in any case.
12. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the Council’s premium and discretionary reduction decisions.
13. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation into Mr X’s complaints that the Council
• was unsympathetic and unhelpful
• said it would not charge the premium for a period, but then backdated the charge.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in complaint responses because the injustice from this is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. There is not enough evidence of fault in other matters to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman