Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed for nine months in referring her property to the Valuation Office for banding, which caused a delay in sending her the correct council tax bill and then demanded payment of a large amount of money at short notice. It also delayed in awarding the correct discounts and acknowledging the impact of the delay. We found fault with the actions of the Council. It has agreed to pay an additional £275 to Ms B and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that the Council, in respect of her council tax:
• delayed for eight months in referring her property to the Valuation Office for banding;
• delayed in awarding the correct discounts and reductions once the banding was completed;
• sent a large bill demanding payment within a few weeks;
• insisted it could not accept a lower payment pending the banding appeal;
• failed to promptly apply the correct banding back to the date Ms B moved into the property; and
• failed to recognise the extent of the injustice to Ms B and her partner by the multiple errors.
2. This caused Ms B and her partner significant distress, frustration and time and trouble along with the financial pressure of having to pay such a large bill.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B 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

Council tax

6. Every domestic property has a council tax band. The Valuation Office, which is part of central government, decides this. Therefore, we cannot investigate that decision. If someone wants to change their property’s council tax band they can apply to the Valuation Office and, if this is refused, they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
7. The council tax bill for the year is due on 1 April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If the liable person misses any instalment, the council will send them a reminder. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance will be due (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).

Analysis

8. Ms B told the Council on 21 May 2022 that she and her partner were moving into a new property on 27 May 2022. It was a new build property and needed to be registered by the Valuation Office who would then apply a banding. The Council forwarded the email to the property inspector to refer the case to the Valuation Office.
9. Ms B sent another email on 15 June 2022. The Council replied saying it had no record of the property. Ms B replied explaining it was a new build and needed banding. She chased again on 30 June 2022. The Council again said it had not record on its system and questioned whether Ms B had heard from the Valuation Office. Ms B said she had not. The Council said it was waiting to hear from the Valuation Office and suggested she contact the office herself.
10. Ms B then contacted the Valuation Office only to be told she needed to get the Council to refer the property to them. Ms B emailed the Council to say she was going round in circles.
11. On 3 August 2022 the council tax section advised her that she needed to contact the Council via its main number. Ms B replied that she had tried to call the number many times without success.
12. Ms B chased the Council on 12 August, 11 October and 21 December 2022 but received no reply. The Council finally referred the property to the Valuation Office on 3 February 2023. Ms B chased the Council again on 8 March 2023.
13. The Valuation Office sent its report to the Council on 23 March 2023 placing the property in Band G. The Council issued bills to Ms B for the council tax owing since May 2022 and said the amount had to be paid immediately.
14. Ms B submitted an application for a disabled person reduction and a severe mental impairment disregard due to her partner’s health condition and proof of his diagnosis. She also emailed the Council to say she was disputing the banding with the Valuation Office and asked for all recovery action to be held pending this appeal, due to the delay to date by the Council.
15. The Council replied on 11 April 2023 that the council tax bills remained payable during the appeal, and it would be sending an inspector round regarding the disregard and reduction application.
16. Ms B replied on 13 April 2023 to say she would pay once the banding appeal was resolved and asked about the disability reduction and disregard. Ms B contacted the Council again on 21 April 2023 as she had received a reminder for the arrears for 2022/23. She was advised the bill remained payable even with the outstanding appeal. Ms B paid the amount due of approximately £2700. She also made a formal complaint about the delays and the demand for payment at short notice.
17. The Council applied the reduction and disregard to the account on 17 May 2023 after requesting information Ms B had already supplied.
18. The Council responded to her complaint on 19 May 2023. It did not uphold her complaint about the demand for payment saying that the amounts billed were due and payable regardless of the Valuation Office appeal or about the conduct of the officer at the call centre who she spoke to about the demand for £2700. It accepted that the Council had delayed in carrying out the visit regarding the disability reduction and disregard and apologised for this. It said it was still looking into the reasons for the delay in referring the case to the Valuation Office.
19. Ms B escalated her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure.
20. On 24 May 2023 the Council agreed to hold the account for six months as the Valuation Office had advised her it would be reducing the banding again. On 30 May 2023 the Council explained the delay in referring the case to the Valuation Office was due to the original notification being missed by the inspector in May 2022 and was not picked up until January 2023. It offered her £125 compensation.
21. On 19 June 2023 the Council sent its stage two response to Ms B. In addition to the delay in the banding referral, it also apologised for the delays in awarding the disabled person reduction and discount. But it said that £125 was sufficient compensation for these issues. Ms B continued her complaint as she felt the Council had not acknowledged that due to its delay, she had had to pay a much higher amount of council tax than she should have done, and the matter was still not resolved.
22. The Council replied maintaining its previous response and referring her to our office.
23. In July 2023 the Valuation Office reduced the banding to F. The Council sent out adjusted bills with the disregard and reduction back to May 2022 with an instalment plan from September 2023.
24. Ms B complained to us.

Analysis

25. The Council accepts it failed to refer Ms B’s property to the Valuation Office in May 2022 and failed to correct the error until February 2023, nearly nine months later. This was fault which caused Miss B significant time, trouble and inconvenience chasing the Council many times during this period and often not receiving a response. I am also concerned that the Council did not actually check at some point during this period whether the case had actually been referred to the Valuation Office and instead directed Ms B to contact them herself. This added to the delay and exacerbated the distress and frustration caused to Ms B.
26. Despite this excessive delay, the Council expected Miss B to pay £2700 as soon as it had issued the bill. It refused to apply any discretion to allow Miss B more time to pay or to reach a lower payment arrangement to allow for her appeal against the banding and the disability reductions to be applied. I accept that the council tax is due as billed and the appeals to the Valuation Office are an entirely separate process, but I consider in the circumstances, the Council should have applied some discretion and accepted the situation had arisen largely due to fault on its part. The failure to do so was additional fault which meant Miss B had to find a large amount of money at short notice to clear a bill which two months later was substantially reduced.
27. I acknowledge that the Council did put a hold on the account at the end of May 2023, but I consider it should have done this at the end of March when it issued the bills.
28. The Council was also at fault for the time it took to process the application for the reduction and disregard. Ms B had to again send multiple emails and duplicate information over a six week period. This was fault which caused additional distress and inconvenience.
29. If the Council had acted without delay it is likely the original banding decision would have been sent to the Council within two months (by the end of July 2022) and Ms B’s appeal would have been resolved well before the end of the financial year allowing her to arrange payment over a longer period of time.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. I welcome the Council’s recognition of fault and the offer of £125. But I did not consider this adequately acknowledged the injustice caused to Ms B and I considered a higher amount was appropriate. I recommended that the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision, pays Ms B an additional £275, making a total of £400.
31. I also recommended that the Council within a month of my final decision informs us of the improvements it has made to its processes to ensure such delays do not recur.
32. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions. It has already provided details of improvements to its Valuation Office referral process.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Ms B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman