Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax premium for a long term empty property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the Council’s decision about a discretionary reduction.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council unfairly charged an empty property premium on the council tax for a property which was part of his relative’s estate. The Council also refused a discretionary council tax reduction He says the Council failed to take account of his disability, the Covid pandemic and the difficulties he experienced. He also says Council officers were patronising, saying he could get someone to advise or represent him.

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council explained why it had applied the premium. It said it had applied a discretionary exception in the additional premium for one year while the property was marketed for sale.
7. The Council said it noted Mr X’s health issues, but it had refused hardship relief under Section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It said its premium was not applied until 2023 which was some time after Covid restrictions ended. It gave Mr X details how to appeal its decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
8. The Council listened to the telephone conversation Mr X had with a Council officer and it did not consider the officer patronising. It was not unreasonable for the officer to signpost Mr X to agencies who could assist him.
9. The Council said it had waited until Mr X sold the property before requiring payment so as not to cause financial hardship. It had obtained a liability order when Mr X had not paid after selling the property. It offered to write off the summons cost if Mr X paid by a certain date.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council explained the reasons for the premium. It applied a discretionary exception for one year. It considered Mr X’s health and circumstances. While it did not agree a hardship reduction, it did not start recovery action when this would normally be taken.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision on a discretionary reduction.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disputes the discretionary reduction decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman