London Borough of Hillingdon (20 012 049)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to give him small business rates relief for premises he bought in 2020. The Magistrates’ Court is better placed to decide whether Mr Q is liable for business rates for the premises.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 005 250)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Mar-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly held her liable for business rates. This is because disputes over liability for business rates are more appropriate for consideration by the magistrates’ court.

London Borough of Bromley (19 015 728)

Statement Upheld Other 12-Mar-2021

Summary: The Council was at fault due to its bailiffs overcharging Miss V more than she was liable for in council tax arrears. This caused Miss V an injustice, but the Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions of the Council and bailiffs in remedying this.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 444)

Statement Upheld Other 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to revoke his company’s small business rate relief. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault and it agreed to provide a remedy.

Southampton City Council (20 008 816)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to award his company small business rate relief. This is because this issue hinges around a question of liability which only the courts can determine.

Cornwall Council (20 010 400)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about paying council tax for his holiday let. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (20 003 530)

Statement Upheld Other 10-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr C complained that he arranged to clear his council tax debt but despite this, his case was passed on to the enforcement stage. He also complained of threatening behaviour by the enforcement agent and his vulnerability was not considered. We find fault because the Council’s enforcement agent failed to act on Mr C’s claim of vulnerability. However, this did not cause him a significant injustice. There is further fault as the enforcement agent failed to respond to Mr C’s email and it incorrectly increased the amount he owed. The enforcement agent apologised to Mr C and corrected his account. The Council has also now waived the outstanding enforcement fees. This is a suitable remedy.