Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 003 727)
Category : Benefits and tax > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 22 Jul 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly held him liable for business rates. The magistrates’ court was better placed to consider the issue and decide if Mr X was liable.
The complaint
- The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly held him liable for business rates at a premises he leased to a third party.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I reviewed the information provided by Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, and the Council’s responses to Mr Y. I shared my draft decision with Mr Y and considered his comments.
What I found
- Mr X believes the Council has wrongly held him liable for business rates at a business premises. He owns the premises but it is tenanted. The Council says Mr X has not provided sufficient information to transfer liability and Mr X has now paid its bill.
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We do not have the expertise to decide complicated matters of liability for business rates. This is the role of the magistrates’ court. When a local authority holds an individual or business liable for business rates it will bill the person/company and non-payment may lead to court action. If the magistrates’ court accepts the person/company is liable it will issue a liability order for the amount owed; the local authority may then instruct enforcement agents to recover payment. If the magistrates’ court considers the person/company is not liable it may refuse the local authority’s application.
- Although Mr X has apparently paid the business rates claimed by the Council the magistrates’ court was better placed to determine the issue of liability in this case. If therefore Mr X disputed the Council’s demand it would have been for him to refuse payment and argue his case at court.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the magistrates’ court was better placed to determine liability for business rates in this case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman