South Cambridgeshire District Council (25 014 602)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 23 Feb 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s application of the empty home premium. It would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council charged an empty homes premium on his council tax when he could not occupy his property due to ongoing adaptations to make the property accessible to him as a wheelchair user.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  3. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X is a wheelchair user and purchased an empty flat which needed adaptations to make it accessible for him. Some of these adaptations were being funded by the Council as a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council applied an empty homes premium to the properties council tax while Mr X was waiting for the adaptations to be carried out.
  2. Mr X asked the Council not to apply the premium and explained he was waiting for adaptations and had not been aware of the premium when purchasing the property.
  3. The Council advised Mr X he could apply for discretionary council tax relief. The Council also informed Mr X he could appeal decision on whether to grant discretionary relief to the Valuation Tribunal.
  4. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply for discretionary relief. If the relief was not awarded it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings