Even though Norwich City Council officials had visited the man's house, he was issued with bills for two properties, even though they knew it was just one.

Norwich City Council has since apologised and paid the man £200 after watchdog Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the authority was at fault in how it had dealt with the unusual case.

The man - referred to only as Mr B in the ombudsman report - bought a property in Norwich in October 2023.

Part of it had been run as a business, while the other part was a home. This menat business rates were payable on a section of the property.

On moving in to the home - the address of which is not revealed in the report - Mr B received bills for business rates and council tax.

He then contacted Labour-run City Hall to say the business no longer existed and the entire property was now a home.

In March 2024, the Valuation Office Agency - the government body which values properties for tax - confirmed it had deleted the business entry and put the property in Band E.

The man was threatened with court over council tax (Image: Joe Giddens/PA Wire)

But it also introduced a new entry for the former business's address with a higher Band F council tax valuation - meaning there were two listings for Mr B's property making both liable for council tax.

City council officials visited Mr B's home and confirmed there was only one property and the second address did not exist. The council asked the Valuation Office to correct the record so there was just one.

However, in October 2024 - with the record uncorrected - the council issued Mr B with a court summons for the outstanding bill for the second ‘non-existent’ address.

Mr B contacted the council to query that. The council said it had not heard anything since its email to the Valuation Office to correct the register and emailed them again asking for a correction.

However, in November 2024, Mr B was issued with a liability order - which allows the council to take enforcement action including bailiffs - for £5,000 of unpaid council tax on the non-existent address.

After he contacted the council, recovery of that debt was put on hold while it waited for the Valuation Office to correct the records, but Mr B then received more letters chasing him.

In March the next year, he received another council tax bill for the non-existent property and contacted the council yet again, who confirmed recovery was on hold until the details were corrected.

Eventually, in June 2025 the Valuation Office did amend the property details, but with one new entry with the wrong address and a higher banding backdated to October 2023.

Mr B complained to the council, who said they would ask the Valuation Office to change the address.

He then complained again and the council told him it had correctly billed him based on the information provided by the Valuation Office.

They said he would need to challenge any banding decision directly with them. That led to Mr B complaining to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman said, while much of the fault was with the Valuation Office, once the council had established his home consisted of just one property, it should have used discretionary powers to resolve the issue.

What does the council say?

A city council spokesman said: "While the delay in updating the property status sat with the Valuation Office Agency, we accept that issuing reminders in these circumstances may have caused unnecessary concern.

"Although we were entitled to pursue the outstanding charges, we recognise the ombudsman’s view that greater discretion could have been applied once the situation was clear.

"We keep our processes under review and aim to balance the collection of public funds with a fair and proportionate approach that takes account of individual circumstances.

"We would encourage any resident with concerns about a bill to contact us so we can resolve matters as quickly as possible."

© Norwich Evening News