Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action for business rates. We cannot consider the court action resulting in the liability order and, after that, Mr X could have taken court action if he believed the liability order was wrong.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council, when pursuing unpaid business rates, did not explain it was seeking a court order against him personally rather than against the business of which he was a director. In early 2020, the court gave an order against Mr X personally, which he believes was wrong. Mr X states he has limited English so, while he knew about the court order at the time, he did not understand it was against him personally until later in 2020. Mr X also complains the Council is taking recovery action against him personally for the earlier debt, including using enforcement agents, when from October 2020 it has addressed later business rates bills just to the business rather than to him.
2. Mr X says these matters have financial implications for him as he is being held responsible for the debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or the conduct of court action. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26B, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. At the heart of this complaint is Mr X’s view that a liability order should not have been issued against him personally. As paragraph 3 explained, we cannot consider the Council’s actions from issuing the court summons until the court made the liability order. So we cannot consider whether the Council was at fault for seeking a liability order against Mr X personally, or for other aspects of how it conducted the court action, including points related to Mr X’s understanding of the court action. Nor can we consider the court’s decision.
9. Before the Council started court action, and after the court granted the liability order, there was no requirement for the Council to ensure Mr X understood the order would be against him personally. The Council could reasonably presume that, as Mr X was operating a business, he would get advice as necessary to ensure he fully understood the implications of the recovery action.
10. Mr X’s argument the Council should now ignore the liability order against him and seek one against the business is another argument that the liability order against him is wrong. Mr X had the option of taking court action to challenge the liability order, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. It was a matter of law whether an order should have been against Mr X or the business. Matters of law are for the courts, not the Ombudsman. We cannot reasonably say the Council was wrong to pursue Mr X for a debt the court had said he owed. I note Mr X’s language difficulty. However, that does not in itself automatically prevent people taking court action. Here, as the matter related to Mr X’s business as well as to his personal capacity, it was reasonable to expect him to take steps such as court action if he believed the business, not he, was liable for a debt. Therefore I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have taken court action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot consider matters related to the court action and because Mr X later could have taken court action if he believed the liability order was wrong. We do not criticise the Council for taking recovery action based on the court order.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman