Valuation Office Agency

6. Mr A complains about the actions of the VOA during his challenge and subsequent Tribunal appeal against his Council Tax banding between October 2021 and December 2022. He says it:

• relied on information about his own property and comparative ones that contained inaccuracies and was inconsistent with its own guidance

• gave misleading information about the time it would take to respond to his request for copies of its evidence and what that evidence consisted of, and it did not comply with this request within a reasonable timeframe

• did not respond to his requests for an extension of time to respond to its evidence

• introduced new evidence at the Tribunal that was inaccurate, did not respond to his questions and made inaccurate statements when summing up its case

• did not provide information on what improvements it would implement after it offered apologies in its second response to his complaint.

7. Mr A tells us that he is frustrated and angry about the way this case has been handled.

8. Mr A seeks service improvements to ensure the VOA complies with its guidance and the terms set out in the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Charter.

9. The VOA is an executive agency of HMRC that values properties for the purposes of setting Council Tax in England and Wales. It does so by placing properties into a ‘band’ from A-H, with each ascending letter reflecting an increased valuation and payment of Council Tax.

10. An individual can challenge their Council Tax banding if they think it is wrong. Mr A submitted a challenge in August 2021, and the VOA responded in October 2021 maintaining the banding. Mr A remained unhappy with his banding and submitted an appeal of this decision to the Valuation Tribunal Service (VTS).

11. A hearing was scheduled for July 2022. As part of the appeal process, the VOA must set out its case and list the evidence it intends to rely on six weeks before the hearing. This is referred to as its ‘six-week pack’. The VOA complied with this stage of the process at the end of May 2022. The appellant (i.e. Mr A) is entitled to request sight of the evidence referred to in the pack, and Mr A made such a request the following week. The VOA provided this information six days later.

12. The appeal process then sets out that the appellant must provide their final submissions to the VOA, including any response to its pack, four weeks before the hearing. This is referred to as the ‘four-week pack’.

13. Mr A unfortunately fell ill in mid-June, and he contacted both the VOA and VTS to request more time to file his pack. As a result, VTS agreed to postpone the hearing.

14. The hearing took place in November 2022, and VTS confirmed its decision not to change Mr A’s Council Tax banding the following month.

15. Mr A complained to the VOA about how it had handled his case. He escalated his concerns through its complaints process to the Adjudicator’s Office, the independent complaints handler that forms the final stage of HMRC’s complaints process. It provided its response, in which it did not uphold his complaint, on 24 July 2024.

16. We received Mr A’s complaint after it was referred to us by his MP on 12 January 2025.

• relied on information about his own property and comparative ones that contained inaccuracies and was inconsistent with its own guidance.

20. Mr A strongly believes the VOA relied on flawed information in reaching its valuation and in defending its position at Tribunal. He also considers it did not act in line with its own published guidance. This is because not all its examples met the necessary specifications. We understand that this was frustrating. We have thought very carefully about whether it would be appropriate for us to investigate such a complaint.

21. We understand VTS considered the evidence from both parties, which agreed with the VOA’s assessment. We cannot replace the judgement of a tribunal with our own, nor would it be appropriate for us to give a view on matters that have already been considered in a legal forum.

22. We understand that Mr A was particularly concerned about the inaccurate information the VOA intended to rely on in relation to his own property. We are pleased to note, as Mr A has told us, the VOA conceded this point in advance of the hearing. Had it not done so, that would have been the appropriate setting to challenge its assertions.

23. We cannot give a view on this part of Mr A’s complaint without duplicating the work already done by VTS. It is not appropriate, nor is it our role, to challenge or contradict a legal decision. We will therefore take no further action on this part of Mr A’s complaint.

• gave misleading information about the time it would take to respond to his request for copies of its evidence and what that evidence consisted of, and it did not comply with this request within a reasonable timeframe

• did not respond to his requests for an extension of time to respond to its evidence

• introduced new evidence at the Tribunal that was inaccurate, did not respond to his questions and made inaccurate statements when summing up its case.

24. Mr A remains concerned about aspects of the VOA’s handling during the appeal process. He was very frustrated about how hard it was to contact the relevant member of staff to request copies of its evidence, and about an extension to provide his four-week pack. He also thinks he did not get a fair opportunity to challenge the VOA’s evidence at the Tribunal. We understand that this was disappointing.

25. We have reviewed the Notice of Hearing in Mr A’s case, which contains ‘Standard Directions’ for the conduct of a Council Tax appeal. This includes directions about the VOA’s provision of its evidence and the appellant’s (in this case Mr A) submissions thereafter, and what to do if more time is required. These directions also contain a stipulation that the VTS ‘must be satisfied that the appellant has not been prejudiced’.

26. We therefore understand that these concerns relate to formal procedures that form part of the appeal process.

27. Schedule 3, ‘Matters not subject to investigation’ of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 explains that we are not able to look at ‘the commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings before any court of law in the United Kingdom.’

28. This means that in our role, it would not be appropriate to consider complaint about actions carried out during legal proceedings (in this case the Tribunal and any subsequent appeal). This includes give a view about the evidence provided during those proceedings, as the person had the opportunity to challenge those actions as part of that legal process.

29. In this case, Mr A is asking us to give a view on VOA’s conduct during the appeals process, in responding to his requests for information and an extension to a deadline. He is also asking us to consider the information it provided in response to his request, and subsequently its actions during the hearing. Having thought about this carefully, the above legislation prevents us from doing so.

30. We can see that Mr A was able to obtain a postponement and more time to provide submissions after applying to the Tribunal because of the delays that he experienced. This was the correct means of addressing Mr A’s concerns in relation to these matters.

31. We will therefore take no further action on this part of Mr A’s complaint.

• did not provide information on what improvements it would implement after it offered apologies in its second response to his complaint.

32. We understand Mr A remains disappointed with VOA’s handling of his complaint, as he does not feel assured that it has made suitable changes to its processes. We understand that this is his main motivation for bringing his complaint to us and how important this is to him.

33. As set out above, we are unable to investigate the main part of Mr A’s complaint to us. We are unable to give a view on this part of his complaint without having fully considered the others. This is because we cannot consider if an organisation has done enough to put things right without first considering if its actions are maladministrative.

34. Taking all the above into account, we are not going to carry out an investigation on Mr A’s complaint about the VOA. We hope that he is assured that we have listened to his concerns, and we have carefully considered our role in looking at them.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the VOA. We understand his experience during the process of challenging his Council Tax banding with the VOA, and subsequent appeal, was a stressful one.

2. Having considered his concerns carefully, we cannot take a view on Mr A’s complaint about VOA’s evidence not being in line with its own guidance. This is because we cannot duplicate work already completed by a tribunal.

3. We also cannot consider Mr A’s concerns about how the VOA handled his requests for copies of its evidence and an extension, and about the evidence it introduced at the hearing. This is because our legislation prevents us from considering complaints about actions relating to legal proceedings.

4. We are not able to investigate Mr A’s complaint the VOA has not sufficiently set out the service improvements it has made. This is because we cannot do so without reaching a view on the issues set out above.

5. We will therefore take no further action on Mr A’s complaint. We explain our decision below.