Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of business rates. This is because the matter has been considered in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Ms Q, complained that the London Borough of Havering is pursuing her for business rates she is not liable for. She said One Source, acting on the Council’s behalf to collect the business rates, acted unlawfully.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided.

Back to top

What I found

5. Liability for business rates is decided in the Magistrates’ Court, as a defence against the grant of a liability order.
6. One Source administers and collects business rates on behalf of the Council. As the Council is responsible for One Source’s actions when it acts on its behalf, I have referred to “the Council” throughout this statement.

Key facts

7. Ms Q said she sent the Council a copy of a business premises lease in 2016. She said this showed the occupier was liable for the business rates.
8. Ms Q said the Council did not send her or the business any business rates demands, reminders, summonses or liability orders. But in 2018 the Council sent her, not the business, a business rates reminder. The date on the reminder was incomplete. Ms Q said she is not liable for the business rates. She believes the Council acted unlawfully because it did not issue demands, reminder notices or other relevant documents over a three year period.
9. The Council said it had obtained a number of liability orders in Ms Q’s name. But when it reviewed its records it decided it could not be sure she had seen the relevant documentation. So it re-billed Ms Q. It obtained liability orders this year. It said Ms Q had not provided sufficient proof to show she is not liable for the business rates.

Analysis

10. We cannot investigate this complaint.
11. I explained above that liability for business rates is decided in the Magistrates’ Court as a defence against the grant of a liability order. Ms Q said she is not liable for the business rates and the Council acted unlawfully. It was open to her to explain to the Magistrates’ Court why she believes this. However, the Council has liability orders against Ms Q. So the Magistrates’ Court has decided Ms Q is liable for the business rates. As the matter has been considered in court we cannot investigate Ms Q’s complaint. I explained the reason for this in paragraph 3.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Ms Q’s complaint. This is because the matter has been considered in court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman