Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Q’s business rates. Much of the complaint is late. In any event, the Council was not responsible for deciding whether Mr Q’s premises should be on the business rating list. And Mr Q’s liability for the business rates was decided in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained about the Vale of White Horse District Council’s handling of business rates for a premises he owned.

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.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Valuation Office Agency. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) keeps the business rating list. It decides if a property should be rated, the rateable value and the date each property enters and leaves the rating list.
9. The law requires councils to bill and collect business rates using the information entered on the rating list. Capita collects business rates on behalf of the Vale of the White Horse District Council. But, for the purposes of this statement, I have referred to “the Council” throughout.
10. The VOA is not a body within our jurisdiction. Complaints about the VOA’s actions may be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
11. Liability for business rates is decided in the Magistrates’ Court, as a defence against the grant of a liability order.

Key facts

12. Mr Q owned a business premises. His tenants left the premises in 2016 and he became liable for the business rates in December 2016. The Council sent him a bill in January 2017.
13. Mr Q contacted the Council about the matter at various points throughout 2017. He made arrangements to pay the outstanding business rates, but then said he should not have to pay and asked the Council to refund what he had paid so far. However, in December 2017, the Council obtained a liability order.
14. Mr Q also contacted the VOA in 2017. An officer there told him – incorrectly – that his premises would have to be demolished before it could be removed from the rating list. The VOA officer invited Mr Q to make a formal challenge known as a “proposal to alter the rating list”. He did not do so.
15. Meantime, in August 2017 Mr Q contacted the Council. Following this call, Mr Q expected an officer to visit, inspect his premises, and send a report to the VOA. An officer did not visit until January 2018. The Council sent a report to the VOA with a recommendation that it reduce the rateable value to zero. In April 2018 the VOA refused to act on the report.
16. Mr Q contacted the VOA again in October 2018. It invited him to send a surveyor’s report. He did so and the VOA agreed to delist his premises.
17. In January 2019 the VOA wrote to the Council reducing the rateable value of Mr Q’s premises to zero, backdated to 1 April 2017. The Council refunded Mr Q. And it wrote off the court costs as a gesture of goodwill for its delay between August 2017 and January 2019 in visiting to inspect his premises.
18. Mr Q is unhappy that the Council did not remove his premises from the rating list and that it pursued him for outstanding business rates. He said it took 18 months to inspect his premises and gave him wrong information about what he would have to do to get it removed from the rating list. The Council told Mr Q it was not responsible for the actions of the VOA which gave him the wrong information.
19. Mr Q complained to us in May 2019.

Analysis

20. Many of the events Mr Q complained of happened more than 12 months before he brought his complaint to us. So much of his complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to consider it now.
21. In any event, the law required the Council to bill and collect business rates for Mr Q’s premises until the VOA removed it from the rating list. The VOA did not remove his premises from the rating list until January 2019, so the Council had to pursue recovery of the outstanding debt until then. That is not something the Council had any control over: it has no power to remove premises from the rating list itself; and it is not responsible for the actions of the VOA. So the Council was not responsible for the VOA taking so long to remove his premises from the rating list. Nor was it responsible for the information the VOA gave Mr Q. The VOA is not within our jurisdiction, so we cannot investigate its actions. Mr Q may complain to the PHSO about the actions of the VOA.
22. In addition, Mr Q’s liability for the business rates was decided in the Magistrates’ Court in December 2017. It was open to him to contest his liability in the Court if he thought he should not have to pay the business rates. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happens in court. So we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
23. So, for the reasons given above, we cannot investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We cannot investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman