Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action by the Council for unpaid business rates. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council pursuing him for summons and liability order costs following recovery action for unpaid business rates in 2020. He says the summons and order were sent to an incorrect address because previous bills had been issued to the business premises address and not the registered company address.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he received contact from enforcement agents over unpaid business rates for which the Council had obtained a liability order in 2020. He says he was unaware of the debt until this point and had received no correspondence about it.
7. Mr X contacted the Council and it advised him of the enforcement action it had taken following failure to pay outstanding business rates. Mr X then obtained rates relief on some of the debt for certain properties but the costs and a debt for a car park remained. He says that the Council was at fault for sending the demands and notices to the company’s registered business address when previous bills had been issued to the business premises which was more local.
8. The Council says it followed the relevant guidance on business rates enforcement which includes the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989. This guidance advises that recovery notices should be served ‘in the case of a company, at its registered office’. The Council told him that it followed the guidance in the legislation and that this was to ensure that the liability order remained valid by being served according to the legislation.
9. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the summons and liability order used the registered company address, and this was a valid address according to the guidance on recovery. It is still reasonable for the Council to seek recovery of the costs which were incurred in 2020.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action by the Council for unpaid business rates. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman