Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s enquiries about his liability for business rates. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the advice provided by the Council, and the Council has taken satisfactory action to address the delay in responding to the associated complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed to give him adequate advice at the earliest opportunity about what he needed to do to get an advertising right business rate removed from the ratings list. As a result, Mr B says he has been made liable for business rates for several months, and had to pay a premium to get the advertising structure removed quickly when he was eventually given the correct advice. Mr B also says the Council delayed in considering his subsequent complaint.

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. We 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
• are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & 24A(7), as amended)

3. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), keeps the business rating list. The VOA decides if a property should be rated, the rateable value and the date each property enters and leaves the list.  If someone wants to challenge the VOA’s decisions they have the right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The VOA is not in the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council;
• Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement, and his associated supporting documents.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B purchased some land in November 2017. He says that despite a thorough conveyancing process, he was unaware the land benefited from an advertising right which was subject to a business rate. In June 2018, the Council became aware that Mr B had purchased the land, so issued him with a bill with the business rate charge backdated to November 2017.
6. A series of communications between Mr B and the Council followed. The Council says it explained that whilst there was an entry in the rating list for the advertising right, then it was obliged to issue Mr B with a bill. It said that to terminate the liability, Mr B would need to approach the VOA, to seek advice as to how to get the advertising right removed from the rating list.
7. The VOA advised Mr B in mid-November 2018 that the advertising right would not be taken out of the rating list, unless the related advertising structure was removed from the site.
8. But as Mr B had not paid the outstanding rates charge by the end of November 2018, the Council passed the account to its enforcement agents. This meant Mr B incurred additional enforcement fees.
9. On 5 December, Mr B sent the Council photographic evidence that the advertising structure had been removed from the site. The Council reported this to the VOA, and the advertising right was removed from the ratings list.
10. Mr B complained to the Council on 6 December 2018, and it replied on 7 January 2019. The Council reiterated that the valuation of rating assessments is a matter dealt with by the VOA. Once the VOA decide to value a property for rating, the relevant local authority has a consequential duty to levy a non‑domestic rating charge against the person entitled to possession of the assessment. This charge continues to be levied whilst the assessment continues to be an entry in the rating list. Should the VOA become satisfied that it should no longer be treated as an assessment for business rates, it will notify the local council who will then remove the property from their records. This, in turn, means that the council can no longer issue a bill for rates against that property.
11. Mr B escalated his complaint the same day. The Council replied on 25 March 2019, setting out the sequence of events and why it felt the Council had acted appropriately with the regard to the business rates applied to the site. However, it did apologise for the delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint, and agreed to waive the enforcement agent’s fees to acknowledge this.

Assessment

12. The VOA is responsible for the rating list, not the Council. I therefore do not consider the Council acted with fault when it advised Mr B to contact the VOA for a decision on how the advertising right could be removed from the rating list.
13. Furthermore, the VOA is not a body within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, so we cannot consider Mr B’s concerns about how the VOA responded to his enquiries.
14. Furthermore, I find the Council’s apology and the removal of the enforcement agent fees is a satisfactory way to address the part of the complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint.
15. For these reasons, I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint against the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his enquiries about the advertising right, and the Council has taken appropriate action to acknowledge the delayed complaint responses.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman