Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint relating to the payment of a debt for unpaid business rates. The courts are better placed to decide the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs C, says the Council will not refund money she paid to bailiffs acting for it. She says she did not owe the money but paid it prevent bailiffs seizing her goods. She says the bailiffs told her the Council would refund the payment once ownership of the goods was established. The Council has now refused to do this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mrs C said in her complaint. I have seen information on the companies involved on the Companies House website. Mrs C commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The actions of bailiffs are governed by the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The Civil Procedure Rules govern how court challenges to bailiffs’ actions should be dealt with. Part 85 of the Rules relates to claims on goods taken or claimed by bailiffs.

Summary of events

6. In summary, bailiffs acting for the Council visited the premises of a company owned by Mrs C, Company A. They were seeking to collect unpaid business rates owed by Company B. It is clear the two companies are not unrelated as they shared a director at the time.
7. Mrs B told the bailiffs Company B owned none of the goods at the premises. The bailiffs did not accept this so Mrs B paid the debt to prevent them seizing goods. She says the bailiffs told her the Council would refund the money once she had shown the goods at the premises did not belong to Company B.
8. Following this, solicitors acting for Company A produced documents showing the transfer of assets from Company B to Company A. The Council has still refused to refund any money to Mrs C and the matter remains unresolved.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the position relating to legal liability for the debt that Mrs C paid is not straightforward. We cannot decide this issue, or whether the Council was wrong not to refund Mrs C the money she paid. I consider the courts are best placed to deal with it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman