Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to intervene in a contractual dispute between him and his landlord. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s injustice is the result of the actions of his landlord rather than the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take action against his landlord, Company Y, to pass on expanded retail discount (ERD). The effect of ERD is to reduce Mr X’s liability for business rates to nil, but Company Y insists that under the terms of his contract he must still pay the full amount of his rent including an amount for business rates.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is personally liable for business rates for his business premises. He does not however pay his business rates directly. Under the terms of his contract with Company Y he pays a monthly amount for rent which includes his business rates payments. Company Y then makes payment to the Council for business rates on his behalf.
6. Mr X applied for ERD in early 2020 and the Council granted the discount from June 2020. Because Company Y had already paid some of Mr X’s business rates this created a credit on his account which Company Y has agreed may be repaid to Mr X. However it has refused Mr X’s request to reduce the amount of his rent to reflect the fact business rates are not currently owed.
7. The Council has told Mr X that as the business rates payer it is Mr X who is eligible for the discount, rather than Company Y, but it has declined to get involved in the dispute over whether Mr X should be allowed to reduce the amount of his rent. Mr X is unhappy with this and wants the Council to intervene. But this is not its role; the issue concerns what is allowed and required under the terms of the contract between Mr X and Company Y and this is a matter for the courts. The Council has no power to require Company Y to alter or interpret the contract in any particular way and any advice or view it provided to Company Y would have no legal status anyway; Company Y could therefore simply ignore it.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of Company Y, rather than the Council. If Mr X wishes to challenge Company Y’s actions he may wish to seek legal advice about a claim through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman