Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action for a business improvement district levy. There is not enough evidence of fault that prevented Mr X knowing the payment was due. We cannot consider parts of the complaint about court proceedings. Mr X could also have taken court action to seek the setting aside of the liability order.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council: did not send him a bill in 2020 for a £200 business improvement district levy; sent ‘indistinguishable’ reminders for that payment and the 2021 payment, so Mr X only paid one bill; and failed to send a summons before asking the magistrates’ court for a liability order. Mr X says this resulted in court costs and enforcement agents’ costs being added to the bill, enforcement agents contacted him, and he suffered stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or conduct of court action. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. 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)
4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X believes the Council did not send a bill in March 2020 as it claims. He says a Council officer stated this in a conversation. The Council says there might have been a misunderstanding during the call, but it says it sent the bill in March 2020 to his premises and to his business’ registered address, neither of which was returned undelivered. It has shown Mr X copies.
8. I do not see enough evidence of fault here that prevented Mr X knowing about the bill. The Council’s responsibility was to post the bills. It was not responsible for what might happen in the postal service. Moreover, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about this part of the complaint.
9. In 2021 the Council sent a reminder for the 2020/21 payment and a reminder for the 2021/22 payment, which was also overdue by then. The two reminders arrived at the same time. Mr X states they looked identical apart from referring to the payments having been due on different dates. Mr X says he did not check them in detail so did not notice that difference. However, I note the reminders also contained different bill numbers. Mr X mistakenly presumed the reminders were duplicates so he only paid one bill. That was not the Council’s fault. The Council is entitled to suppose a business will check such documents carefully.
10. The Council then started court action for the unpaid bill. Mr X argues the Council should have sent a further reminder first. This point is about the start of court action, so we have no power to consider it, as paragraph 2 explained.
11. The Council says it sent a court summons. Mr X doubts that, as he says he did not receive a summons so was unaware of the court hearing until afterwards. The question of whether the Council correctly sent a summons also concerns the start and conduct of court action, so we cannot consider it.
12. Additionally, if Mr X believed the liability order should not have been made, he could have asked the court to set the order aside when he learned about the order. So the restriction in paragraph 3 also applies. Whether the Council should have got a liability order is a legal point that the court is better placed than the Ombudsman to decide. The court also had the power to set aside the order if it saw fit, which would have removed the court costs and enforcement agent costs as Mr X wanted. As Mr X was running a business, I consider it would have been reasonable to expect him to take court action if he believed the recovery action had been incorrect and the liability order should not have been made.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault that prevented Mr X knowing the payment was due. We cannot consider parts of the complaint about court proceedings. Mr X could also have taken court action to seek the setting aside of the liability order.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman