Summary: Mr X complains about delay by the Council in notifying his company of a business rates liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any dispute is for the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delay by the Council in notifying his company of a business rates liability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complainant's comments and the Council's comments and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s company leased an area of land in February 2016 which it has since used as a car park. He says that he received a business rates bill for the Council on 1 December 2017 for business rates backdated to February 2016.
6. He says that it was unreasonable for the Council to delay sending the bill after so long.
7. The Council says that it only became aware of the use of the land when notified by another party on 28 November 2017 and sent the bill immediately after. It says that any dispute as to whether the land should be on the Valuation list should be taken up with the Valuation Office Agency.
8. Mr X says that he could not have been expected to know that the land could be liable for business rates and, had the Council sent the bill earlier, he would have cancelled the lease.
9. I am satisfied that, once the Council became aware of the use of the land, it issued a bill promptly and properly. Mr X could reasonably have made enquiries about any possible liability at the start of the lease of the land.
10. Any dispute about whether liability still exists due to the delay in charging Mr X is a matter for the court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because this is a matter for the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman