Southend-on-Sea City Council (19 008 758)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the rateable value of a business premises she briefly occupied as this is set by the District Valuer and appealable to the Valuation Tribunal. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her liability for business rates as the courts are better placed to determine the issue.

Birmingham City Council (19 003 269)

Statement Upheld Other 16-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault for making his business liable to business rates for a property he had no connection with. The Council failed to follow proper procedures which led to Mr X receiving sudden and inappropriate contact from bailiffs about a debt he did not owe. The Council should make a payment to Mr X to recognise the time and trouble he spent pursuing the complaint and the distress caused by bailiff contact.

London Borough of Merton (19 003 435)

Statement Upheld Other 15-Oct-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council recovered an outstanding debt using its bailiff. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the bailiff charged the sale fee. The Ombudsman recommends the Council refund Mrs X for the sale and disposal fee and acts to prevent recurrence.

London Borough of Islington (18 014 066)

Report Upheld Other 04-Oct-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council unreasonably delayed in sending her a demand for business rates for 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 which she considers she is not liable for. As a result, Mrs X cannot challenge the Council’s decision she is liable for the business rates as she no longer has the evidence to do so.

Manchester City Council (19 007 682)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council continued to claim payment of business rates from her despite her many attempts to try to get the problem sorted out. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about council decisions to start court proceedings or their conduct of court proceedings. It is for the court to reach a decision should the Council take bankruptcy or other court proceedings against Miss B.

Westminster City Council (18 013 319)

Statement Upheld Other 01-Oct-2019

Summary: The complainant received demands for business rates owed by her company and the previous occupant of her business premises. In confusion the complainant mistakenly paid the demand for the previous occupant’s business rates. Quickly realising her mistake, the complainant asked the Council to refund her payment. The complainant says the Council took too long to refund the payment causing inconvenience compounded by paying the refund in two parts. The complainant wants the Council to pay interest on the refund and her solicitor’s costs. The Council says it acted properly in refunding the payment and refused to pay interest or the solicitors’ costs. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in handling the refund.

Bristol City Council (19 007 051)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Sep-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with non-domestic rates for two properties he occupies. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Preston City Council (18 011 334)

Statement Not upheld Other 18-Sep-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly consider information she said proved she had a tenant occupying her business premises. She said this meant she was unfairly billed for business rates. She feels the Council racially discriminated against her. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

London Borough of Havering (19 006 591)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Sep-2019

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of business rates. This is because the matter has been considered in court.

Blaby District Council (18 016 417)

Statement Upheld Other 17-Sep-2019

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his Council tax arrears. The Council was at fault. It failed to tell the bailiffs to put his account on hold while it investigated errors Mr X brought to its attention. This meant the bailiffs carried out an enforcement visit before the Council finished investigating the errors. As a result, Mr X incurred an avoidable enforcement fee. The Council agreed to deduct the enforcement fee from Mr X’s outstanding arrears and issues him with a new bill. The Council also agreed to pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble he experienced pursuing his complaint.