Oxford City Council (24 010 298)

Statement Upheld Other 26-Aug-2025

Summary: Mr H complained about the Council’s enforcement action for unpaid business rates. And later actions, including making him a vexatious customer and a fraud investigation. Based on current evidence we find some fault with some of the Council’s communications with Mr H and with a delay in progressing the fraud investigation. These will have contributed to Mr H’s distress. The Council has agreed to carry out our recommendations.

London Borough of Islington (25 002 808)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees the Council’s enforcement agents charged when collecting a council tax debt. This is because most of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. For the more recent events, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Hertsmere Borough Council (25 004 740)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about a private rented property in disrepair and also how the Council handled Mr X’s council tax accounts. This is because some elements of the complaint are late and there are no good reasons they could not have been made sooner. Of the remaining issues, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions and Mr X could have appealed the Council’s decisions on council tax support, to the Valuation Tribunal.

Durham County Council (25 002 321)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Enforcement Agent. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 003 409)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Aug-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a business rates account. This is because there is no significant outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

Manchester City Council (24 013 839)

Statement Upheld Other 06-Aug-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly held him liable for business rates on a property, failed to properly investigate the correct liability, and inappropriately pursued enforcement action. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. The Council failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the correct liability for business rates, acted on incorrect assumptions, and allowed enforcement to proceed on a liability it has since accepted was incorrect. It also failed to report concerns to the Valuation Office Agency, contrary to its duty as a billing authority. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 024)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Jul-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about business rates liability. This is because we have no power to investigate the taking of court action and only a court can decide liability for business rates.

Coventry City Council (25 000 444)

Statement Upheld Other 21-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an enforcement agency inappropriately clamping his car despite knowing it was under a finance agreement and for ignoring his vulnerabilities. This is because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the fault accepted. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

City of London (25 000 783)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of business rates from Mr X. It was reasonable for him to dispute the matter in the magistrates court which is a body better placed to determine business rates liability.

Birmingham City Council (25 000 225)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund an overpayment of business rates to a liquidator. This is because it would be reasonable for the liquidator to make a claim against the Council at court.