Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a council tax account for which the complainant was the executor. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council would not believe he had sold a property and wrongly insisted he provide details of the new owner. This caused stress and inconvenience. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and change its procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and a liability form Mr X completed. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X was the executor of an estate. His role included selling a property. He completed a form in which he said he did not know who the new owner would be. He agreed, on signing the form, to provide updates.
5. In May Mr X told the Council the house would be sold in June. The Council asked Mr X to provide details of the new owner so it could close his account. Mr X said he did not have the information and the Council should get it from the solicitor. Mr X complained the Council would not accept what he had disclosed and would not contact the solicitor. Mr X says the Council sent an illegal demand for council tax in September even though he had not been the owner since June.
6. In response to his complaint the Council said it was his responsibility to provide the name of the new owner and he would remain liable until he had provided the information. It said it had tried to get the information from the land registry but the records had not been updated. The Council told Mr X it was not its responsibility to contact the solicitor. Nevertheless, the Council did contact the solicitor who responded in October. The Council then closed Mr X’s account from the date of completion of the sale in June.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It was not wrong for the Council to ask Mr X for details of the new owner. Mr X says he did not know the name of the buyer but if he had obtained the information from the solicitor then the Council may have closed the account before October. In addition, when signing the liability form, Mr X agreed to provide updates and, once he was aware there was a completion date, he could have asked the solicitor for details of the new owner so he could update the Council.
8. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Although Mr X does not think he should have been required to provide the information, and says he was sent an illegal demand, the account was closed and the Council obtained the information from the solicitor. Mr X has not had to pay council tax for the period after the sale of the property.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman