Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of business rates for an empty property. Mr Q’s injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that Preston City Council sent a business rates bill for an empty property his company owns to the wrong address. It then summonsed him for unpaid business rates.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered Mr Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

4. Mr Q’s company owns a business property. The tenants left in July 2018. Mr Q expected the Council to send him a business rates bill for the empty property after an exemption period, and he would then pay the bill in instalments. However, the Council did not bill Mr Q until December 2018 and demanded he pay the whole amount in full within 18 days.
5. Mr Q emailed the Council. Its automated reply said it aimed to respond within 28 days. The Council did not respond. Instead, it sent Mr Q a summons for the unpaid business rates. Mr Q emailed the Council again. In February 2019 it withdrew the summons as it realised it had sent the bill to the wrong address. It also agreed to reinstate payment by instalments.
6. In response to Mr Q’s complaint about the matter the Council said it should have checked his address to avoid the bill being sent to his company’s old address. Despite this, it did not find any evidence of fault by its officers.
7. Mr Q is unhappy the Council summonsed him for non-payment of the business rates. He said the Council would have been aware of his address from another property his business owned. He is unhappy the Council did not find fault with its officers’ actions, despite saying an officer should have checked his business address before sending out the bill. And he is also unhappy the Council did not explain why it did not respond to his first email. Mr Q would like compensation.

Analysis

8. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. Mr Q is understandably unhappy that the Council sent the business rates bill to the wrong address and then summonsed him before it responded to his initial contact about the matter. He is also understandably unhappy that the Council decided it was not at fault despite saying it should have checked his company’s address. However, it was open to Mr Q to contact the Council himself when he did not receive a bill at the end of the exemption period. And the Council withdrew the summons and reinstated payment by instalments following Mr Q’s second contact. So while Mr Q has undoubtedly suffered injustice because of the Council’s fault, I do not think it is significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr Q’s injustice is not significant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman