Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to add a storeroom to his rates bill. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Valuation Tribunal dealt with Mr X’s appeal about his business rates. Additionally, Mr X has failed to provide the Council with information to allow it to investigate his complaint about officer behaviour.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to add a storeroom to his rates bill. He said a reminder notice was not the first error by the Revenues department in the last 12 months.
2. Mr X complained, “the department has abused its role and relationship with a ratepayer”. He asked the Council to register a formal complaint against the department and staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information put in by Mr X with his complaint. I have also considered the Council's response.
7. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, on the advice of the Council, about the rateable value on his storeroom.
9. The Council sent Mr X a Reminder notice for unpaid non-domestic rates. He contacted the Council, twice by e-mail, because he did not believe he owed anything.
10. The Council responded and explained Mr X’s rates bill should have included a line stating a figure was due immediately. The Council apologized for the error. An officer detailed Mr X’s correct payments, removed the Reminder notice and recalculated his instalments.
11. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He said it was not the first error by the department which he said had “abused its role and relationship” with him. Mr X said he wanted to make a formal complaint against the department and its officers.
12. The Council’s complaint response admitted there had been a printing error on Mr X’s rates bill and apologized again. An officer explained how the Council had applied rating legislation to Mr X’s situation. He said the Valuation Office Agency had reduced Mr X’s liability and the Council had applied this decision to his rates bill when in issuing a new a bill. The officer did not accept there had been many errors, as Mr X had suggested.
13. Mr X was unhappy with this response. He said the officer had not dealt with his complaint. Mr X said the issue had “been rudeness, sarcastic and rude references to other matters, incompetence, not the business rates which have never been contested”.
14. The Council asked Mr X to provide information on “the issues, dates, service area, to which you are referring” to allow it to investigate what had happened.
15. Mr X did not provide any information in his response. He referred the Council to its complaint response.
16. The Council asked again for the information.
17. Mr X responded the reply to his formal complaint was unacceptable. He explained his problems had been within the Revenues department. Mr X said this department should have everything needed for an investigation of his complaint.
18. The Council reviewed Mr X ‘s complaint. It said Mr X had not detailed the errors he was referring to, or explained how the Council had abused its role. The Council said most of Mr X’s correspondence with the Revenues department had been about the rating matter.
19. The Council went on to say Mr X, despite asking him twice, had not provided information to support his complaint. The Council said it could not investigate a complaint based around a suggestion it should review all previous contact to show where it had made errors.
20. The Ombudsman asked Mr X to provide further detail on his complaint. He said it began with the storeroom and a request about property relief. Mr X said sending out the wrong demand was the “last straw”. He said there was “clearly dysfunctional behaviour management cannot control”.

Analysis

21. Mr X’s complaint is linked to his issues about adding the storeroom to his rates bill. This matter, not as simple as he believes, has been dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal, and the Ombudsman cannot therefore be look at it.
22. We expect councils to engage with complainants to fully understand their complaints. This allows agreement about what should be investigated. Mr X’s responses to the Council trying to get further information about the substance of his complaint did not provide this. It is not fitting for Mr X to refer to the Council to previous correspondence without being specific about what he meant.
23. From the evidence I have seen the Council has acted properly in asking Mr X to detail his complaint about officer behaviour.
24. The Ombudsman asked Mr X for detail about his complaint. Much of his frustration with the Council centres on the rating matter. While I understand this, it is not something we will look at. Without further details about the officer behaviour he references we cannot investigate this complaint.
25. If, because of his experiences with officers during this matter, Mr X feels the Council should investigate their behaviour he needs to be clear about what this was and when this happened.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not provided information to the Council to support his complaint to allow a proportionate investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman