The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax court costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he has been charged council tax court costs for a property he was not living in and was unaware of the charge. Mr X wants the Council to remove the costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
When a property is empty the owner is liable for the council tax. If someone does not pay the council tax the Council will issue a reminder and then a summons. The summons attracts court costs as soon as it is issued.
Mr X bought a property in May but did not move in until October. He notified the Council in early September that he had bought the property.
In May the previous owner told the Council they had sold the property. The Council was unaware of the new owner so checked with the land registry where the records showed Mr X’s partner had bought the property in May.
The Council issued a council tax bill in July showing the council tax due from May. It sent all the letters to the property. It issued a reminder in August because it had not received any payments. It then served a summons on 7 September and charged court costs. On 9 September Mr X told the Council he had purchased the property in May.
Mr X complained about the court costs and said he was unaware of the bills because he had not been living in the property. He asked the Council to remove the costs. The Council explained it had issued the summons correctly and would not remove the costs. It apologised, however, for a delay in replying to his correspondence in September.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X did not tell the Council until September that he had bought the property in May; he was liable for the council tax from the date of purchase but did not make any payments until after the summons had been issued. The Council had to contact the land registry to identify the new owner and, in the absence of any other address, had to send the bills and summons to the property. And, because it received no council tax payments, it was entitled to serve a summons and charge costs. Mr X says the Council should cancel the summons because he got in touch two days later and he says there are no costs because there was no court case. However, the court costs are incurred when the summons is issued and there was requirement for the Council to cancel the summons because Mr X had not paid the council tax in accordance with the legislation.
I appreciate Mr X was unaware of the council tax charge because he was not living in the property but that was not due to fault by the Council. The Council followed the correct process and there is no reason to start an investigation and there are no grounds on which we could ask the Council to remove the costs.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman