Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to tell him about a small business rate relief review, failed to send him reminders before escalating the case to enforcement agents and unreasonably refused to remove the enforcement agent charge when he remains entitled to small business rates relief. There is no fault in how the Council handled the case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with his small business rates relief. Mr B complained the Council:
• failed to tell him about the rate review;
• failed to send him reminders before escalating the case to the enforcement agent; and
• unreasonably refused to remove the enforcement agent charge when he has remained entitled to small business rates relief.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• gave the council and Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr B began receiving small business rates relief in 2016. On 2 August 2018 the Council undertook a small business rates relief review of all accounts claiming small business rates relief. The Council wrote to all those in receipt of the small business rates relief, including Mr B, to ask them to complete the review form and return it by 30 August 2018. The Council said in that letter if it did not receive the form by 30 August it would remove the small business rate relief back to 31 March 2018 and would issue an adjusted bill.
6. On 10 September as Mr B had not responded to the Council’s letter of 2 August it issued a reminder. When Mr B did not respond the Council issued a new bill on 22 October, removing Mr B’s small business rate relief. The Council issued a reminder as it had not received any payments on 12 December. When Mr B did not respond the Council issued a summons on 16 January 2019. The Council secured a liability order at the Magistrate’s Court on 13 February.
7. The Council passed the debt to the enforcement agent on 19 February. An enforcement agent visited Mr B’s business address on 21 March and left a letter for Mr B. That prompted Mr B to contact the Council on 22 March. Mr B told the Council he did not know about the small business rates relief review and put in an application. Mr B asked the Council to remove the costs but the Council refused.
8. The Council subsequently awarded Mr B small business rate relief. This means Mr B has no business rates arrears. However, Mr B is left with a £405 bill relating to Council and enforcement agent costs.

Analysis

9. Mr B says the Council did not write to him to tell him about the rate review. Mr B says because the Council did not do that it did not give him an opportunity to apply for a continuation of his small business rates relief. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Council wrote to Mr B to tell him about the small business rate relief review on 2 August 2018. I am also satisfied the Council issued a reminder to Mr B on 10 September. I am satisfied the Council issued those letters to the right address. I appreciate Mr B says he did not receive the letters. However, the Council cannot be held responsible for any failure by Royal Mail to deliver letters. As I am satisfied the Council issued the letters and sent them to the right address I have no grounds to criticise it.
10. Mr B says the Council did not send him reminders before escalating the case to the enforcement agent. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Council sent a revised bill to Mr B on 22 October 2018, followed by a reminder on 12 December 2018. I am also satisfied the Council sent Mr B a summons on 16 January 2019. All of that precedes the Council sending the case to the enforcement agent. As I am satisfied the Council issued the appropriate letters to Mr B at the right address I have no grounds to criticise it.
11. Mr B says the Council should remove the enforcement agent charge as he remained entitled to business rates relief throughout the entire period. Mr B therefore says the Council should not have escalated the case to the enforcement agent. I am satisfied though the Council only escalated the case to the enforcement agent after Mr B failed to respond to at least four letters. It is Mr B’s failure to respond to any of those letters, rather than fault by the Council, which resulted in the Council referring the case to the enforcement agent which incurred costs. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for refusing to remove the enforcement agent charge. The issue is not whether Mr B was entitled to small business rates relief throughout the period. The issue is he failed to apply for small business rates relief by the deadline and failed to respond to letters issued by the Council on 10 September 2018, 22 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Again, I recognise Mr B says he did not receive any of those letters. However, as I am satisfied the Council has a record of issuing the letters I am satisfied they were sent. As I said earlier, the Council cannot be held responsible for any failure of Royal Mail to deliver the letters.
12. In reaching the view the Council was not at fault I am aware Mr B suggests the Council should have used alternative methods to try to contact him before referring the case to the bailiffs. Mr B has referred to the Council having his email and telephone number for instance, as well as his home address. However, the Ombudsman would expect the Council to communicate with Mr B at the registered address for the business when dealing with business rates, unless he had asked the Council to communicate with him at an alternative address. I have found no evidence to suggest Mr B raised concerns about not receiving post at his business address until after the issues raised in this complaint. Nor have I found any evidence of Mr B asking the Council to communicate with him at a different address before the events complained of. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for continuing to write to Mr B at his business address.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman