The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms L and Mr P complained the Council delayed in completing land searches on a property they were trying to sell which delayed the sale. They complained the Council charged council tax during that time even though it caused the delay in the sale and delayed in responding to their complaint on the matter. The Council failed to consider using its discretion to reduce the council tax bill and failed to keep complete and accurate records. The Council agreed to consider its discretion to reduce the council tax on the property and pay Ms L and Mr P £150 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty they experienced.
The complaint
Ms L and Mr P complained the Council delayed in completing land searches on a property they were trying to sell which delayed the sale. They complained the Council charged council tax during that time even though it caused the delay in the sale and delayed in responding to their complaint on the matter. Ms L and Mr P state this caused them financial loss and the time and trouble of dealing with the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Ms L and Mr P and discussed the complaint with them on the telephone.
I considered the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
Ms L, Mr P and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Land searches Land searches are needed for the buying and selling of properties. Local authority searches provide information on covers, charges or restrictions relating to land or property. The searches provide information about matters such as public highway proposals for new road and rail schemes or planning decisions that may affect a property. The government target for returning land searches is a maximum of ten working days. (Local Land Charges Act 1975) Council tax Where a property was owned by someone who has died, a person can apply for probate and sell the property on the deceased owner’s behalf. They do not have to pay council tax on the empty property until probate is granted. The council can apply an exemption for a further six months if the property is empty and still owned by the person who died. After six months the council tax is payable.
The amount of council tax due for a property can be ‘reduced to such an extent as the [council]… thinks fit’. Councils have the discretion to reduce the council tax on a property in its area to nil if it decides it is appropriate to do so. (The Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 13A(1)(c)) If a person is unhappy with a council’s decision, they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
The Council’s policy The Council’s policy for determining applications for a discretionary reduction in council tax liability sets out how it considers request for a discount or exemption. It states it can choose to use its powers on a case-by-case basis. Its decision can be appealed in writing, and it will be reviewed by an independent officer. After that it can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Principles of Good Administrative Practice In 2018 we published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from councils – “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. This includes: informing service users what they can expect and what the organisation expects of them; being open and clear about policies and procedures and ensuring information, and any advice provided, is clear, accurate and complete; and stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions.
What happened Ms L and Mr P’s mother, Mrs X, owned and lived in her own house. In November 2019 Mrs X died. Ms L and Mr P applied for probate, which was granted in February 2020.
Ms L stated that as soon as probate was granted, she and Mr P did all they could to sell Mrs X’s house. At the time the country was subject to restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and estate agents were not open until after June 2020.
In August 2020, six months after probate was granted the Council began charging full council tax on the property. Ms L and Mr P did not pay the charges.
In October 2020 Ms L contacted the Council and complained that she and Mr P had to pay council tax on Mrs X property. She said she could not market the property for the first four months after probate due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
The records show that a prospective buyer requested land searches in November 2020. The Council completed and returned the searches at the beginning of January 2021. Ms X stated the sale did not progress.
A new prospective buyer requested a land search in February 2021. The buyer contacted the Council again in April 2021 and asked for the Council to complete the searches. The Council completed and returned the searches within three days.
In April Ms L contacted a Councillor and complained the searches were delayed. She said the Council was charging council tax even though it was delaying the sale of the property. Ms L asked the Councillor to speed up the searches and waive the council tax bill on the property.
Ms L and Mr P stated they contacted the Council many times by telephone about the delay in the searches and the council tax bills between January and May 2021. The Council states it has no record of those telephone calls or the emails to or from the Councillor.
In April 2021 Mrs X’s property sold and Ms L and Mr P were no longer liable for the council tax.
In October 2021 Mr P contacted the Council about the outstanding council tax bill from August 2020 until April 2021. The record shows the Council would consider reducing the council tax debt under section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (the Act). There is no further record of that consideration.
Ms L contacted the Council in November 2021 and sent it the email she had sent to the Councillor raising her complaint about land searches and council tax in April 2021. Ms L repeated her request for the Council to cancel the council tax bill.
The Council provided a stage one response in December 2021. It said the council tax was due on the property from six months after probate was granted until the property sold. The Council stated it had not addressed any delays incurred with the land searches as that was a separate department.
In January 2022 Ms L contacted the Council. She asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two and for it to cancel the outstanding council tax bill for Mrs X’s property.
The Council responded to Ms L in February 2022. It said: it held no record of emails to or from the Councillor. It said it was not accountable for the delay in dealing with the complaint as Ms L should have followed it up with the Council; there was a ‘general awareness’ of Ms L and Mr P’s complaint by Council officers due to Mr P’s calls. However, it held no record of the telephone calls, and it did not affect the outcome of the complaint; the stage one response was delayed and limited in detail, for which it apologised; it could not rescind, waive or refund the council tax by law; and the delays in the land searches were caused by pressures on the Council by the COVID-19 pandemic, and it could not be blamed for the delay in the sale of the property.
In response to my enquiries the Council said Ms L and Mr P did not request a discount specifically under section 13 of the Act and therefore it did not consider it.
My findings
The Council charged council tax on Mrs X’s property six months after probate was granted until the property was sold. That was in line with the legislation and there was no fault in the Council’s actions.
The Council told Ms L it could not reduce the council tax bill according to the law. That was not correct and was fault. The Council had discretion to reduce the council tax to nil. This response was wrong and caused Ms L and Mr P frustration There is no record the Council considered using its discretion, despite a case record saying that it would do so, or that it told Ms L and Mr P they could apply for a discretionary exemption. That was fault and not in line with the legislation. The Council said Ms L and Mr P did not request a discount under the legislation. I am not persuaded by that argument as the records show Ms L asked for the Council to cancel the council tax bill in October 2020, April 2021, November 2021 and January 2022. If the Council had acted without fault and considered its discretion and told Ms L and Mr P of its decision, they would have had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
The Council’s failure to consider using its discretion and provide Ms L and Mr P with information about their appeal rights was fault and not in line with our guidance on good administrative practice. It caused Ms L and Mr P frustration and uncertainty of what the result would have been had the Council acted without fault.
The government target for completing land searches was ten days. Both searches requested on Mrs X’s property took around 40 days. I accept that at the time the Council was under additional administrative burden caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the delay in completing the searches on both occasions was fault. I cannot say this caused the delay in the sale of Mrs X’s property. However, Ms L and Mr P were caused uncertainty about whether it would have sold sooner, and they would no longer be liable for the council tax, had the searches been completed without delay.
Mr P states he made many calls to the Council about the council tax bill. The Council said it had an awareness of the complaint due to those calls, yet it does not hold a record of them. It also does not hold a record of Ms L’s complaint to the Councillor or the actions the Councillor took. The failure to keep accurate records is fault and caused a delay in the complaint process.
Due to the lack of accurate records the Council did not recognise Ms L and Mr P’s complaints until November 2021, this was six months after they originally contacted the Council. This caused Ms L and Mr P further frustration and time and trouble. The Council recognised there was a delay in the stage one response, for which it had already apologised.
Agreed action
Within one month the Council will: Write to Ms L and Mr P and apologise and pay them £150 each to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused to them by the Council incorrectly telling them it could not reduce the council tax bill and its failure to consider using its discretion to do so, its failure to completed the land searches in good time and to keep accurate records; and Consider using its discretion under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to reduce the council tax owed on Mrs X’s property. It should provide its decision to Ms L and Mr P in writing, with their right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if necessary.
The Council will also remind relevant staff to: consider using discretion to reduce council tax bills when asked to do so, even if the request does not refer to the relevant legislation; provide people with information on their right of appeal to the Valuation tribunal; and keep clear, accurate and complete records.
The Council will remind Councillors to pass complaints to the relevant Council departments for its consideration.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has completed the recommendations.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I found fault that caused injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman