Legislation or guidance on the duty of care and competency required of local authority tax units

rs_at_home

What government legislation will address the the duty of care and competency required of a local authority; particularly with respect to council tax.

We were granted an exemption by a local authority that was overturned almost a year later and we have been assessed a tax in retrospect. Although not admitted, their actions indicate that this exemption was a mistake. Apart from the emotional distress involved (this is related to a bereavement) we have suffered financial damages of over £6000.

p00hsticks

It might be helpful if you could give the reason why the exemption was overturned. Was it because the council believed that the property was empty after the death but in fact there was someone living in the property ? Or (as we've had come up before) that the council decided that little effort was being made to administer the estate and/or that a probate application was being unreasonably delayed.

Keep_pedalling

How has this cost you £6000? 

rs_at_home

I don't want to give too much detail but in general a Grant of Probate was issued in December but the Letters of Administration were not received until the following February. The Opening into the Inquest of the deceased was also held in late February.  The family of the deceased live across the country from where the deceased maintained property and where the Inquest is being held.

An exemption was issued by the Council in early March.  Looking back now and having studied the legal situation, it is clear that the council did not know that a Grant of Probate had been issued but neither did the Administrators.  The timing of the matter did not give the Administrators time to inform the council before this exemption was issued.

However, the Administrators, who are family members and have never been in this situation before, assumed that the exemption was accurate and binding, had no reason to challenge it, and accepted it.

The property involved was in a poor state, and was not habitable.  Decisions needed to be made as to how to best dispose of it in the interests of the beneficiaries.

The Administrators, with the exemption in hand, and with no knowledge of the local market and whether the property could be sold quickly, decided to prepare the property for either sale or let with a view to trying to dispose of it by the end of the exemption period or letting it by that time so that the Estate would not incur any council tax obligations. This decision led to an investment of over £6000. The property was non-habitable for about a year or more and works were on-going for several months following this decision.  Some of this is due to the new fire regulations that came into force in 2023 and some related to the terrible condition of the property.

However, about a year later the Council Tax unit contacted the Administrators.  In their letter it was clear that they had all the information we sent to them wrong and we sent them again all the information very promptly and very accurately.

When the Administrators received the Exemption, they had no reason to doubt that the information of March was accurate and binding.  Further, Councils under section 13A of the Local Authorities Act have compete discretion in these matters.  The Administrators assumed that the Council was exercising this discretion.

The deceased died in circumstances that has made the Inquest extremely challenging.  It has required numerous hearings and still there is no Inquest date set.  This is being held under the same Authority and the Administrators assumed that the Council had exercised discretion under this circumstance.

I have since learned that there is a national probate register that the Council could have consulted at any time.  As family of the deceased who died intestate, we had no knowledge that such a thing existed.  We were busy with post-mortem arrangements, inquest hearings, funerals and all the mountains of paperwork that are required, apart from the terrible grief.

There are other issues as well, the council appears to be trying to assign the obligation to the Administrators, personally, not the Estate.  This is illegal.  Also the paperwork is confusing, different CT numbers are being used.  It's just a mess. It is impossible to get through to anyone by telephone, letters are being issued by different departments and are contradictory.

I believe that there must be some sort of duty of care or compentency obligations in law.  Surely a council cannot conduct themselves in such a way with no standards of performance? 

 

lincroft1710

If a council makes an error whether by maladministration or because of misinformation received and acted upon, they have a duty to correct that error. So if an exemption from paying CT was granted in error, the council must rescind that exemption and charge the correct amount of CT due. 


Administrators of an estate can be held personally responsible if they fail to administer the estate in a correct and proper manner. 


What actually are you hoping to achieve? Because unless you can show the council should not have changed their mind about the exemption, I cannot see any mileage in this.

rs_at_home

It is irrational to think that an estate Administrator, having received a statement from the council, should challenge it. The rational action is to accept it as binding and act accordingly.

If that action then leads to a decision to invest money, this is also rational.

The Council may have a duty to go back and correct that error.  However they must also recognise that the error has caused financial harm to the Estate and accept some liability.

The two actions cannot be separated. The council cannot divorce themselves from liability in this case.

rs_at_home

correction above:  ... *having received a statement of exemption* from the council ...

rs_at_home

I have observed a lot of difference in the way the various councils interpret the legislation. Some councils seem to play loose and fast and malign the intent of the Local Authorities Act. I am concerned that this is what has happened here.

In any case, under section 13A of the act, there is complete discretion to reduce tax to zero. 

lincroft1710

A council will not accept liability for a CT payer expending money following a decision by that council. Especially if the expense is not directly connected to the CT. If the change of mind about the exemption results in the estate being depleted by having to pay CT when it wasn't expecting to, then that is unfortunate. Usually a council's change of mind is because it was given incorrect information in the first place.  


A council's decision on the amount of CT discount on unoccupied properties it gives or does not give cannot be legally challenged as this is entirely up to the council.


You still haven't stated what you want to achieve

rs_at_home

There are a number of things that I want to achieve, but they are outside this discussion. These relate to the way the Council conducts itself, clarifications and perhaps systemic issues.

With respect to the discussion, ideally they should acknowledge the March exemption and honour it.

However as you say they have a duty to correct their error and if so bound they cannot honour the March exemption.

In that case we have experienced a financial loss and should be compensated for it.

In terms of the Estate, it has been excellently managed to date. It is well-funded and ring fenced. If the ruling goes against the Estate then the bill will be settled in full immediately.

This will not go to the valuation tribunal, instead it will go to the Ombudsman and/or to litigation if there is any chance of success. I don't question that the valuation is wrong, I question the fact that their error has caused financial loss.

lincroft1710

Exactly what financial loss has the estate experienced that the council have caused other than having to pay CT when it wasn't expecting to?