Summary: There was some minor fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s correspondence when he said he was no longer liable for council tax. It caused a slight delay and asked him for some information which it already had. However, it has already remedied his injustice by apologising.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council continued to charge him for council tax at his property, even though he had moved out and both he and his letting agent had given the Council his new tenants’ names.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to take prompt action when he made told it – more than once – that he had moved out of the property. It asked for details of his tenants, and then, after several weeks, asked him for a copy of their tenancy agreement. He believes this was disproportionate.
3. The Council continued to charge Mr X for council tax for six months after he moved out of the property. Although it has now refunded him, he says he was caused inconvenience and frustration. He wants a financial remedy from the Council to recognise this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered information from Mr X, which included his correspondence with the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In August 2022, Mr X told the Council that he had moved out of his property. He provided the address. He said his new tenants would be in touch.
8. Mr X says his letting agent wrote to the Council and provided the names of his tenants. I have seen no evidence of this.
9. In September Mr X complained to the Council, saying he had received no response to his previous email, and had continued to pay the council tax. He asked for a refund.
10. The Council told Mr X that it had not received details of the new tenants. It asked him to provide them so it could give him a refund, but – over a month later – he refused, saying the Council already had everything it needed.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X shortly afterwards (at the end of November) and apologised for how long it had taken to deal with his initial email. It asked again if Mr X would provide the details of his tenants. He did so in early January 2023.
12. At this point the Council had the address of Mr X’s property, the names of the tenants and the date they moved in. Nevertheless, it then asked Mr X for the address again. It subsequently apologised for doing so.
13. A fortnight after Mr X had provided his tenants’ names, the Council asked for a copy of their tenancy agreement. It says it made the decision to ask for this because Mr X had failed to provide the tenants’ names for five months, and, when he had provided the names, it had been unable to verify the tenancy using its internal processes.
14. Mr X refused to provide the tenancy agreement, saying he had provided everything asked of him and he believed the Council was now being ‘awkward’. The Council asked the letting agency for the agreement instead and it was provided. The Council closed Mr X’s council tax account and refunded him two days later.

My findings

15. There was some minor fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s correspondence. There was a delay before it dealt with his initial email, and then it asked him for information he had already provided. It has already apologised for these mistakes.
16. However, the Council has adequately explained why it asked for new information in January 2023, and I am satisfied that it was entitled to do so. I have also seen no evidence that the Council knew the names of Mr X’s tenants before January 2023. In fact, it appears Mr X had opportunities to provide the names much earlier. This was not the Council’s fault.
17. This means Mr X has no remaining injustice, and no further action is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There was some minor fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s correspondence when he said he was no longer liable for council tax. However, it has already remedied his injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman