Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge him Council tax, resulting in unfairness. He also complains about the Council’s intimidating behaviour. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process however we find fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommend it provide an apology and make a payment for time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council charged him council tax for a property even though he could not move in due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He considers the Council should have used its discretion to waive the charges given the circumstances or offered discretionary relief. He says he has felt bullied and intimidated by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council. This included:
• Copies of council tax bills issued to Mr X
• Records of phone calls between the Council and Mr X
• Copies of emails exchanged between the Council and Mr X
6. I gave Mr X and the Council the chance to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments provided before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Moving home during COVID-19

7. In March 2020 the Government issued guidance about moving home during the COVID-19 pandemic. This said home buyers and renters should, where possible, delay moving to a new house while measures were in place to fight COVID-19. If moving was unavoidable for contractual reasons and the parties were unable to reach an agreement to delay, people had to follow advice on staying away from others to minimise the spread of the virus.

Hardship fund

8. In March 2020 the Government gave councils additional funding to support those facing hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. It published guidance to councils on how to apply this relief.
9. It expected councils to use the funding to reduce council tax liability for those already receiving council tax support. However, councils could establish their own approach in using any remaining funds. This could include, but was not restricted to:
• Council tax relief using existing discretionary discount/hardship policies (adapted where necessary in order to capture those most likely to be affected by COVID-19); and
• Additional support outside the council tax system through Local Welfare or similar schemes;
• A higher level of council tax reduction for those working age LCTS recipients whose annual liability exceeds £150.

Council’s policy on use of remaining hardship fund

10. In response to enquiries the Council explained it used remaining funds from the hardship fund to support new council tax support claimants. It also provided a copy of a briefing report showing how it reached this decision in consideration of the Government guidance.

Discretionary relief

11. Councils have discretion to apply a discount to reduce any person’s council tax liability to nil if they wish. Councils should have a process for considering any request and established criteria. If a person is unhappy with a council’s decision they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Council’s policy on discretionary relief

12. The Council’s website explains council tax discretionary relief can help if you cannot afford to pay all of your council tax bill. It is normally paid in addition to the local council tax support scheme. However, it can also be considered in rare situations if you do not receive council tax support.
13. The Council also publishes its policy on its website. This says a person can apply for the relief if they are liable for council tax and:
• received a Leicester City Council Tax Reduction; and/or,
• receive of Universal Credit (UC); and/or,
• require further financial assistance; and/or,
• suffer hardship through an extreme event or natural disaster where their main or sole residence has structural damage, which could not reasonably have been rectified within the normal period of exemption.
14. The policy says if the Council refuses your request you can apply for judicial review. (However, I note there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.)

What happened

15. On 24 March 2020 the Council issued a bill to Mr X for council tax charges covering the period from 16 March 2020 to the end of that tax year, 31 March 2020.
16. On 26 March Mr X emailed the Council to say he had not yet moved in. And on 6 April Mr X told the Council by phone that he had signed a tenancy agreement but had not moved in due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
17. The Council issued a new bill on 7 April. This recorded the property as an unoccupied, furnished, second home. The full sum remained payable for the tax year to 31 March 2020. The Council also applied charges for the next tax year, to 31 March 2021.
18. On 3 June Mr X emailed the Council to say he would be moving in on 18 June and wanted a revised bill.
19. The Council issued a new bill on 12 June. This recorded the property as an unoccupied, furnished, second home to 17 June, with full council tax charges payable. It also recorded the property as occupied with a single person discount applied from 18 June.
20. On 12 June Mr X emailed the Council querying why it had applied charges to 17 June given he did not move in due to lockdown. He again asked for an amended bill. On 1 July Mr X emailed the Council again that he would not pay up to 18 June given he could not move in due to lockdown. He asked for a bill with charges from 18 June only.
21. On 13 July the Council issued a bill on the same basis as before.
22. Mr X called the Council on 23 July. He said he could not move in until 18 June due to lockdown and the property was empty and unfurnished until then. Therefore, he would like an exemption.
23. On 29 July the Council issued a new bill applying the unoccupied and unfurnished rate to 17 June. This resulted in a one month empty property discount to 15 April but the full rate was payable thereafter.
24. On the same date Mr X called the Council to say he did not want to pay the empty property rate as he could not move in due to COVID-19. The Council told him he had been billed correctly and if he remained unhappy he could speak to Citizens Advice or his local councillor.
25. On 1 August Mr X wrote to the Council seeking to challenge the council tax bill as he was unable to move in. Further, he was unhappy that he was not told of any ability to challenge the bill and he wanted to make a complaint.
26. The Council replied on 4 September. It explained Mr X became liable for council tax from 16 March, once the tenancy started. It applied its empty property discount, providing 100% relief for one month. It could not apply any other discount that did not exist. The Council explained that if he disputed liability he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. But if he was unhappy with the level of the empty property discount this could only be challenged through judicial review.
27. Mr X contacted the Council again. He said it had not addressed his complaint that he had received four bills and the Council only applied a discount after he complained. The Council did not direct him to its complaints process but suggested he contact a lawyer or advice agency. Further, the Council had suggested he should have moved into the rental property during the pandemic, in breach of the law.
28. The Council responded further. It explained it generated a new bill whenever there was a change to the account. On 29 July it recalculated the instalments payable although it would not usually do this for an account in arrears. The Council apologised that he was not told how to complain and suggested there may have been a misunderstanding. The officer confirmed he was charged correctly and told him how to seek further advice regarding the regulations. There was no law to prevent people from moving house and some people still did so.
29. Mr X disputed the Council’s response. He felt the bill increase in April was an attempt at intimidation. The bill issued in June did not apply the single person discount for the full period and did not apply any unoccupied discount. He disputed his account was in arrears given he paid what he felt was correct.
30. The Council explained it adjusted the charges in April based on the information provided. It did not previously know he was the sole occupier in order to apply the single person discount. And its records suggested the property was furnished and so not eligible for the empty property discount. It amended his bills when it received relevant information. It does not usually recalculate bills when payments are in arrears, as his are. However, each time it received new information it adjusted his bill.
31. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that he was unable to move into his new property during the lockdown and he felt the Council should be sympathetic to his circumstances. Further, the Council had not offered him discretionary relief. He said the way the Council had dealt with the matter left him feeling bullied and intimidated.
32. The Council told the Ombudsman that Mr X did not suggest he faced difficulty paying the council tax bill, rather he objected to paying it on principle. Therefore, it did not prompt him to apply for its discretionary relief, which was for those who struggled to pay their bill. However, information about financial support was available to the public on its website. Its bills also gave advice if people were struggling to pay, with reference to its discretionary relief policy. 
33. In comments on a draft of this decision the Council:
• Said it could not find any record that it told Mr X to move house in breach of the law.
• Accepted its communications fell short and identified further training needs;
• Confirmed its Council Tax Discretionary Relief policy was updated from September 2020 to include a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council’s webpage now also had the correct policy, (Council tax Discretionary Relief Policy, March 2021).
• Confirmed it would work with staff to learn lessons from the complaint, in addition to completing the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Findings

34. Mr X does not dispute the Council applied the correct charges given the status of the property but feels the Council should have taken a different approach given his circumstances.
35. I cannot say what the Council should have decided in Mr X’s case. Rather, I can look at how it reached its decisions and whether it followed a proper decision making process.
36. Councils had access to a hardship fund. This was to support those already in receipt of council tax support, which Mr X was not. However, the Government gave councils discretion as to how to spend remaining funds. Therefore, I investigated whether the Council should have used these funds to support Mr X.
37. The Council has provided evidence showing it considered the Government guidance and decided it would use the remaining hardship fund to support new council tax support claimants. The Council’s briefing report records its reasoning. I am satisfied the Council followed a proper decision making process. I note this did not assist Mr X at the time of his complaint however I am unable to find fault.
38. Councils can also consider discretionary relief. Therefore, I investigated whether the Council should have supported Mr X through its discretionary relief policy. I note the Council publicises its discretionary relief policy on its website and on the back of council tax bills. It is up to individuals to apply to this scheme, however I would expect the Council to direct people to the scheme where appropriate. Mr X did not apply to the scheme and the Council did not point him to it. However, I have taken into account the Council’s explanation; that there was no indication Mr X faced difficulty paying the bill and that information about the policy was readily available in any event. Taking these points into account, I find no fault by the Council in not directing Mr X to this scheme.
39. The Council had no further discretion to reduce or waive Mr X’s council tax charges. Therefore, while I acknowledge Mr X would have liked the Council to make an exception for him, it was not obliged to do so.
40. On review of the Council’s communications with Mr X, I consider the Council should have written to Mr X upon issuing revised bills, to explain how and why the bills changed, especially given Mr X queried its billing. The lack of clear communication and transparency amounts to fault. The Council did not provide a full explanation until later in the complaints process, meaning Mr X was put to avoidable time and trouble. He also felt the Council’s actions were bullying and intimidating.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council carry out the following actions within one month of the date of my decision:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for the shortfall in the level of communications;
• Pay Mr X £100 for time and trouble;
• Take action to ensure staff provide a written response to any customer queries, rather than issuing a revised bill without further explanation.
42. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s council tax bills. However, I find fault in its communications with Mr X. The Council has accepted my recommendations and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman