Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with non-domestic rates for two properties he occupies. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with non-domestic rates for two properties he occupies. He told us this has caused him financial hardship.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the provisions of the Local section 43 Local Government Finance Act 1988 and section 61 of the Local Government Finance Act 2003 and the information the government publishes on its website. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B told us he registered for small business rates relief in May 2017. But he says the Council did not issue a bill until 7 January 2019. The Council then requested payment of the outstanding amounts immediately with no provision for monthly instalment payments.
5. Mr B says the Council applied small business rates relief to one of his properties but the bill was still a significant amount. Having read the Council’s guidance on the back of the bills, he considers there should be one bill for the two properties or the Council should apply small business rates relief to both properties.
6. Councils can apply small business rate relief if the occupier occupies one property with a rateable value of up to £15,000. If they take on a second property, they may be able to retain the relief on their original property. On the small business rates relief section of its website the government says if someone gets a second property, they can continue to get small business rates relief on their main property in certain circumstances. It does not say small business rates relief can be applied to the second property. The Council is not at fault for not applying small business rates relief to both of Mr B’s properties.
7. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council has explained it did not have the information it needed to prepare Mr B’s bill until late November 2018. That was when the landlord of the property gave the Council details of Mr B’s occupation from April 2017. In that situation we would not criticise the Council for failing to offer payment of the arrears in instalments straightaway. That is because the delayed billing did not arise because of fault by the Council. In this case the Council did agree instalment payments after Mr B had complained.
8. The question of whether the two properties should be treated as one for rating purposes is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency, not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman