The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending Mr X a bill for council tax, for charging him to replace smoke alarms and removing rubbish, and for forcing him to demolish a property. This is because the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council: Sent him a bill for council tax when the properties had tenants.
Charged him to replace some smoke alarms even though he had arranged to fit new smoke alarms.
Invoiced him for removal of rubbish at a property in 2015.
Forced him to demolish a property due to it being unsafe in 2009.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing him a council tax bill is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because any dispute about liability for council tax can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. The tribunal is an expert body, and their decisions are binding on the Council. I see no reason why an appeal could not be made in this case.
The rest of Mr X’s complaints are late. This is because the demolish of the property took place in 2009 and the charges for the removal of rubbish were issued in 2015. There are no good reasons for why Mr X has taken more than 12 months to complain about these matters.
Further, the Council replaced the smoke alarms following an inspection that took place in 2019. The Council confirmed it sent a hazard awareness notice, along with a schedule of works, to Mr X’s wife as she was registered as a joint owner of the property the with a schedule of works.
There is evidence Mr X was aware in 2020 the Council sent his wife a fixed penalty notices for failing to comply with the hazard awareness notice. There are no good reasons for why Mr X could not have made his complaint earlier.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman