Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax account. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The Council’s apology is a suitable response, and there is not enough evidence of fault in its advice that he could appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was wrong to charge council tax for his late relative’s property. He says the Council delayed updating the account when he advised the property was due to be sold. Mr X says he should not have had to pay council tax of £223 after the estate was settled. He says the Council also wrongly advised him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied that:
• It had applied an awaiting probate exemption of 100%, and then when probate was granted, it applied a further exemption for six months.
• The post probate exemption ended in February 2025. Full council tax was then due and it sent Mr X a bill for £309.
• Mr X told the Council he sold the property in March 2025. The Council noted this but did not end the liability.
• It apologised for its delay in ending the account, which it did in May 2025.
• Mr X was aware council tax was due from February.
• It was not an error to direct Mr X to the Valuation Tribunal. He had disputed the council tax due on the basis the property was empty.
• The Valuation Tribunal had advised him there was no prospect of success as the Council had properly applied the exemption.
6. We will not investigate this complaint because while there was fault by the Council in its delay in ending liability, the injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The Council had advised Mr X that council tax was payable in February. This was reduced in May but not by a significant amount. The Council’s apology for its delay is a suitable remedy for the fault, and we would not seek the removal of the charge as a remedy.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation regarding the Council advising Mr X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Mr X was disputing the council tax on the basis the property was empty. The Council correctly advised Mr X that the charge was due to the after probate exemption ending. But it advised he could appeal regarding the liability/ charge and whether the Council had applied the legislation correctly.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice due to the delay is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The Council’s apology is a suitable remedy, and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s advice that Mr X could appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman