Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax premium because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and there is no significant injustice caused by the alleged Council fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he was misled by a Council leaflet which stated that the Council tax empty homes premium would apply to properties empty for more than 24 months. The Council later stated that the leaflet was incorrect and the period was for 12 months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
4. We investigate 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 or continue 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says that his house was up for sale for 18 months (due to delay in caused by a potential purchase). He says that the Council later sent him an increased Council tax bill as his house had been empty for more than 12 months.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. Whilst the error in the leaflet could be considered fault, I am not persuaded that any significant injustice flows from this as the property was not sold within 12 months in any event and he would have had to pay the extra tax. I do not therefore consider any injustice sufficient to warrant investigation.
10. Any dispute as to whether the premium applies in his case could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. The tribunal is an independent body which can determine any dispute about such decisions. I see no reason why an appeal could not be made in this case and so the complaint is out of jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to warrant investigation and there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman