What to do? The answer will probably lie in taking the LA to a valuation tribunal (under Local Government Finance Act 1992). Most people think of tribunals in the context of determining the correct property bandings for council tax, but they also have a jurisdiction in determining disputes over liability and the amounts of tax. Thus, they have jurisdiction over all disputes involving student status, sole or main residence, exemptions, liability to tax, discounts and mathematical calculations (with the exception of council tax benefits). Accordingly, if there is a bona fide dispute over council tax liability then the best advice is to appeal to the valuation tribunal as soon as possible (it costs nothing). To start an appeal you write to the LA challenging its decision and requesting a reference to the valuation tribunal. To avoid any misunderstanding this is best done by writing at an early stage saying that ‘in the event that you do not accept our submission please take this letter as notice of appeal to the valuation tribunal under s16 Local Government Finance Act 1992’. In practice, simply inserting that phrase will often get a recalcitrant LA to concede (rather than face a hearing over a relatively small amount of money).

An excellent article in the SJ makes the point that letters asking for a referral are often lost within the LA’s systems. Thus, the best tactic is always to send a copy of the letter to the tribunal notifying them of the intention to seek an appeal and requesting that the matter be placed on file awaiting the decision of the LA. That will usually result in the tribunal contacting the LA itself, thus ensuring there is a proper record.

Even if a summons has been issued, it is possible to go to a valuation tribunal. The key requirement will of course be to get an adjournment of the proceedings (and that will temporarily end the computer-generated process). The argument should simply be that there is an appeal to the valuation tribunal, and that in itself should be a sufficient basis for an adjournment, pending the outcome of the appeal.

One other point worth bearing in mind is that the Ombudsman may also be able to help. For instance, in one case a complainant had a summons issued against him whilst his claim for benefits was still being determined. The Ombudsman decided that in most such instances such a step would constitute maladministration; the end result was that the Ombudsman found the taxpayer had suffered stress, inconvenience and an unnecessary attendance in court, with the result that £400 compensation was recommended. So, if a client is awaiting a benefits decision do tell the LA that it will almost certainly be maladministration for them to proceed and issue a summons (although their computer will almost certainly ignore that argument!).

For an excellent article on this topic, and a review of the authorities, see [2006] SJ 500. © Practical Lawyer