Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not giving him a council tax exemption. This is mainly because of Mr X’s right to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly explain why it would not exempt his property from council tax. As a result, Mr X stated he was having to pay council tax he did not properly owe and was without a satisfactory explanation of the Council’s reasons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X provided. I shared my draft decision with Mr X, considered his comments on it then changed this statement of reasons as I considered necessary.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X owns a second home where he lived some of the time. He was no longer intending to use it himself so was planning to rent it out.
8. The government’s first national COVID-19 lockdown meant Mr X could not go to the property himself, nor could he arrange for a tenant to move in. So Mr X asked the Council to give the property a Class G council tax exemption, which is where the law forbids anyone occupying a dwelling. It is more commonly used, for example, where a compulsory purchase order prevents anyone living in a property. However, Mr X argued it applied in his situation. The Council disagreed and refused to award the exemption.
9. The Valuation Tribunal (VT), which is independent of the Council, can consider an appeal on this point. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
10. Mr X stated he was not asking the Ombudsman to decide if the property was exempt from council tax, rather he wanted the Ombudsman to consider whether the Council had properly explained why it refused the exemption. Mr X told me the reasoning the Council gave him was not understandable, clear or detailed enough. He argued that without more detail on the Council’s reasoning, he could not decide whether he had a good case for the VT and he did not want to waste time on an appeal if the Council might provide more reasoning during the appeal process that would persuade Mr X the Council’s case was valid after all.
11. I understand the distinction Mr X makes between whether the property should be exempt and whether the Council adequately explained its position. However, I do not consider the two points are sufficiently separate in practical terms for the purposes of the Ombudsman’s role. This is because for us to express a view on the quality of the Council’s reasoning, we would inevitably have to consider the substantive question of whether the property should receive the exemption. We could only decide whether the Council’s reasoning was adequate by deciding whether the reasoning was persuasive in line with the relevant law, the circumstances of this case, and so on. That would be tantamount to us considering whether the Council should have given the exemption.
12. It is not properly the Ombudsman’s role to draw out more reasoning from the Council, or get clarification from the Council, so somebody can decide whether to use another remedy available to them, in this case by appealing to the VT.
13. So I am not persuaded we should reasonably seek to investigate whether the Council has given Mr X a good enough explanation for refusing the exemption.
14. I have also considered whether Mr X’s argument that the Council’s reasoning is not good enough to enable him to decide whether to appeal makes it unreasonable to expect him to appeal, meaning we should use the discretion mentioned in paragraph 3 above and investigate both the Council refusing the exemption and how the Council explained the refusal.
15. However, logically, most appeals to the VT happen because an appellant is not satisfied with a council’s reasoning; anyone who thought their council had given satisfactory reasoning would not appeal. So Mr X’s situation here is not significantly different from that of most people refused a council tax exemption or discount and who have the right to appeal to the VT.
16. Mr X expressed concern to me about whether the VT might award costs against him if he appealed unsuccessfully. However, the VT cannot do that.
17. I am not persuaded that appealing to the VT is such a significant step that Mr X could not appeal without the Council explaining its reasons further. Appealing is free, it exists for situations including this one, and the process is intended to be relatively straightforward for lay people.
18. Mr X also expressed concern about time limits for appealing to the VT. I understand someone should usually appeal within two months of the Council’s final decision (which would usually tell the person of their right to go to the VT), or within four months of the person’s appeal to the Council if the Council did not reply. There is also a right to ask the VT for a late appeal.
19. Here, the documents from the Council that I have seen did not advise Mr X of his right to appeal to the VT. So it is debatable whether the relevant timescale has yet started. That would be for the VT to decide. Even if the relevant timescale has passed, if the Council did not tell Mr X about his appeal right, Mr X could point that out when asking the VT for a late appeal.
20. I am also mindful the VT has the expertise to deal with this matter and can overturn the Council’s decision and award the exemption if it sees fit.
21. Overall, I am not persuaded to use the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the whole matter despite the appeal right. I also note Mr X says he is not asking the Ombudsman to do that. I consider it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to the VT.
22. As I have explained above, I do not consider we can adequately separate the issue of whether the Council explained itself properly from the issue that the VT can consider. So I shall not investigate the complaint.
23. The Council’s responses to Mr X that I have seen did not mention the right to go to the VT. I can draw this to the Council’s attention.
24. Mr X is dissatisfied with how the Council handled his formal complaint. However, as I shall not investigate the complaint, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling, for the reasons paragraph 5 gave.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to the Valuation Tribunal and there are not enough grounds to investigate the Council’s explanations and communications separately from the underlying issue of the council tax exemption and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal right on that underlying issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman