Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued him for business rates. The Council sent Mr X court summons in 2016 without fault. Given the passage of time we will not investigate the circumstances of the issue of summons further. The Court determines liability orders. The Ombudsman cannot question its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly pursued him for business rates for a property he was not liable for. He says the Council failed to send him a summons to appear at a court hearing about this and therefore he missed his opportunity to argue his case.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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) Therefore we cannot normally investigate complaints where we are satisfied someone know of a court hearing that considered the question of business rate liability. Mr X complained the Council did not make him aware of the summons and so he was denied an opportunity to make his case. I therefore exercised discretion to investigate the serving of the summons.
4. 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)
5. The events Mr X complains about happened several years ago. He has been in correspondence with the Council about them during this time. The Council’s final complaint response in 2019 referred him to the Ombudsman. I have therefore exercised discretion to consider the complaint about events in 2016.
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
8. I considered evidence from the Council.
9. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Business rates

10. Business rates are a local tax on business premises. Councils bill the business ratepayer.
11. The question of disputed liability for business rates is decided by the magistrates’ court which issues liability orders. There is a right of appeal against orders to the higher courts.
12. Where the court has made a liability order at a hearing where a complainant was not present, but where the person had the opportunity to be present, the law says we cannot investigate the matter. We can, though, investigate whether the summons was correctly served. If we find it was not, we can ask the Council to cancel the orders and ask that the matter be reconsidered by the court. Only the court can say whether someone is liable or not.
13. Councils must serve summons by delivering them to the person, leaving the notice at the person’s address or sending by post to them at that address. This can include delivery of summons by Royal Mail.

Background

14. The Council says it sent two business rates summons to Mr X at his regular correspondence address in October and November 2016. It has provided copies showing the correct postal address. This is an address to which it has previously sent council tax and business correspondence to Mr X for several years. Mr X says the summons were not sent to his home address and so he did not know about the court hearing.
15. The Court issued liability orders for Mr X to pay business rates at two hearings in October and November 2016. These covered the periods 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Mr X attended further court hearings in 2017 considering the matter, making agreements to pay the amount he owed for 2017-2018 by instalments which he then paid.
16. Mr X has, since 2016, corresponded with the Council, contesting his liability over several years. In the Council’s final complaint response it said it had followed the correct process to issue the orders. It referred Mr X to the Ombudsman.
17. When I spoke to Mr X he said the Council had not sent him the summons in 2016 and he believed it had acted unfairly towards him. Mr X has provided evidence of payments he made to the Council for the amount he owed in respect of the liability order for the bill for 2017-2018.

My findings

18. The Council has provided the summons it says it sent Mr X in 2016. They were addressed to Mr X’s correspondence address. This is also the address Mr X has given the Ombudsman. The Council states it sent them by Royal Mail and that it had successfully corresponded with Mr X using this address previously. Delivery by Royal Mail is set out in Government regulations as an acceptable way for councils to send summons.
19. There is therefore no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to serve Mr X with the summons. I cannot say why Mr X reports he did not receive the summons. Further investigation of this matter of disagreement is unlikely to resolve what happened, particularly given the passage of time since the events complained about.
20. Because the summons was correctly served, we cannot investigate or further consider Mr X’s liability for business rates. This was a matter for the court and the law says we cannot consider this further.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigate as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman