Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s recovery of business rates for a property her business occupied. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her correspondence, then wrongly proceeded with recovery action at her mother’s home. There was no fault by the Council in the action taken.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s recovery of business rates for a property her business occupied. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her correspondence, then wrongly proceeded with recovery action at her mother’s home.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and spoke to Ms X. I asked the Council for its comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Ms X and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X’s business has occupied three different properties since 2014. In April 2015 she moved from office 1 to office 2. On 1 May 2017 she moved to office 3. At office 1 her business received small business rates relief (SBRR). This meant there was no liability for business rates.
6. When Ms X moved to office 2 she wrote to the Council on 5 May 2015 saying she had moved and asking if the rate relief would still apply. The Council has no record of receiving the letter so continued to send annual business rates statements to the property addressed to the previous occupier. Ms X said she did not see any correspondence from the Council for the previous occupier while she was there.
7. In April 2017 the annual statement for business rates for office 2, addressed to the previous occupiers, was returned as undelivered to the Council. The Council contacted the company through its registered address and found that it had left the property two years earlier. The Council then contacted the landlord who provided Ms X’s details. So in October 2017 the Council issued bills for the outstanding business rates at office 2 to Ms X. These were posted to Ms X at office 3.
8. In July 2017 the Council issued reminders to Ms X for business rates at office 3. Ms X replied by email saying she had sent the application for SBRR on 2 June by recorded delivery. She provided a scanned copy. The Council then awarded SBBR for office 3.
9. The Council issued reminders, summons and a liability order for the liability for office 2 to Ms X at office 3 over early 2018. Over April all the documents were returned by the post office as ‘return to sender’ or ‘addressee unknown’.
10. Also in April the Council instructed enforcement agents. It had found Ms X’s home address from the SBRR form for office 3. The Council say that Ms X was registered for council tax purposes at that address. The enforcement agents sent an enforcement letter which was returned "opened in error. No one of this name at this address". The enforcement agents phoned Ms X’s mobile phone and visited office 3 and left paperwork there. That was returned stating no longer at that address. They then delivered an enforcement letter to Ms X’s home address.
11. Ms X then complained to the Council. She said that this was the first she knew of any liability for rates at office 2. She had believed she had been awarded SBRR so considered there was no liability. She said the address used was her mother’s address.
12. Over the summer of 2018 there was correspondence between Ms X and the Council. The Council’s position was that it had not received the May 2015 letter from Ms X notifying of the move to office 2 and that she needed to complete a form for SBRR. She was likely to qualify for SBRR but without the form the Council could not make the award. Ms X said she notified the Council when she had moved and had posted a form for SBBR for office 2 to the Council in August 2018. She believed the Council needed to carry out a thorough investigation of its handling of post.

Analysis of the key issues

Recovery action for office 2

13. The problems started when the Council did not receive Ms X’s notification that she had moved to office 2 in May 2015. But I cannot say there was any fault by the Council there. It was not sent by a signed for service so it could have been lost in the post.
14. The Council said it continued to bill the previous occupier. Ms X says she received post for the previous occupier as there was no mail redirection but did not receive anything from the Council.
15. The next significant action is in October 2017 when the Council wrote to Ms X at office 3 about the liability for office 2. There was no fault by the Council in it taking that long to establish Ms X as the liable person. It had not received the initial notification from Ms X and there had been nothing further to alert it to there being a problem until April 2017 when bills were returned. The previous occupier had been awarded SBBR so the Council was not expecting to receive payment. The Council then acted appropriately to establish who was liable.
16. Ms X wrote on 7 November. The Council did not receive the letter. Again I cannot say that was because of any fault by the Council. The Council proceeded with recovery action with correspondence to office 3. This was eventually returned by the post office but only after the Council had instructed enforcement agents. The enforcement agent visited both the presumed home address for Ms X and office 3. Ms X considered it was wrong there had been recovery action to what she says is her mother’s home and not hers as she no longer lived there. There was no fault in the enforcement agents trying to make contact with Ms X at the address the Council had reasonable grounds to believe was her home address. The enforcement agents tried to contact Ms X via her mobile phone number and business number and visited the office premises. When that was unsuccessful they visited and left a letter at Ms X’s mother’s house. They did not see anyone. I do not know why Ms X received that letter when the earlier one had been returned.
17. This prompted Ms X to contact the Council. She says that she requested meetings with Council officers. There was a request which I cannot see the Council expressly responded to but I do not consider this to be significant in terms of the Council’s overall response to Ms X. I refer below to the complaint handling.
18. Ms X says that she did not know there was an outstanding liability at office 2. But she did know that she had not completed an SBRR form and had not had a response to her letter of November 2017. There is some responsibility on the liable person to ensure that any discounts or exemptions are in place and Ms X knew she had not had any confirmation from the Council that SBRR had been applied.
19. Ms X completed the form for SBRR for office 2 in August 2018. The Council did not receive it but Ms X does not have any proof of posting or receipt. The Council says it cannot confirm SBRR will apply for office 2 without the form. Ms X has refused to provide a further copy. It is for Ms X to decide if she does not want to complete a new form or provide a copy of the one completed in August 2018 to the Council but if she does not then there are no grounds why the Council should not proceed with recovery action for the outstanding business rates for Office 2.

Complaint handling

20. Ms X complained on a Friday at the end of May and an officer replied on the following Tuesday. The Council wrote again just over a week later. There was some confusion over Ms X’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. That was unfortunate but I do not consider it to be significant. Ms X was also concerned that the officer who responded at stage 2 was not independent. The Council’s procedure requires that a manager that has not already been involved in the complaint will look over the complaint again to ensure the initial investigation was carried out properly and effectively. Here the officer who responded at stage 2 had not been involved in Ms X’s earlier correspondence and I do not, therefore, consider it was inappropriate for him to reply.
21. The automatic acknowledgement the Council sent to Ms X of her complaint said that it would be considered by the Chief Executive at stage two. The Council has confirmed to me that was a mistake in the letter as that was not the policy that was in place at the time. This is not a significant issue that warrants any further action or comment.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was no fault by the Council in the action taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman