Summary: The Ombudsman cannot pursue this complaint about whether Miss B is liable for business rates. This is because the question of liability was decided in court.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s actions in pursuing her for business rates. She argues she is not liable for most of the rates the Council wants her to pay. Miss B states she has suffered distress and anxiety as a result.

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. 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

3. I considered the information Miss B provided. I asked the Council about any court action in this case. I gave Miss B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss B rented premises on which business rates were payable. The Council is demanding payment of business rates including rates that accrued after January 2016. Miss B argues she is not liable for those rates because her lease on the premises ended in January 2016, since when she has had no access to the premises and has not had to pay rent.
5. Miss B also expresses unhappiness with how the Council has communicated with her about this matter, including its handling of correspondence and meetings and its raising the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings.
6. The central point of the complaint is whether Miss B is liable to pay what the Council is demanding. If a council believes rates are unpaid, it must ask the magistrates’ court for a liability order before the Council can take recovery action. So anyone who disputes liability can wait for the Council to take court action then argue in court that they are not liable. The magistrates’ court then decides liability.
7. The Council told me it has liability orders for all the arrears it is asking Miss B to pay. Miss B’s complaint to us also mentioned bailiffs and a discussion with the Council about possible bankruptcy action. Both of those are forms of recovery action that would only happen after the Council got liability orders. So the evidence suggests the Council got liability orders.
8. This means the court decided Miss B is liable. Miss B would have had the opportunity to tell the court why she believed she was not liable and to appeal against the court’s decision if she disagreed.
9. As the central point of the complaint has been decided in court, the restriction described in paragraph 2 above applies. We have no legal power to pursue this complaint.
10. The other points Miss B mentions about the Council’s dealings with her seem secondary to the main point of the complaint, which is whether she owes what the Council demands. So I consider it would be disproportionate to consider those points further. I note the Council also pointed out to me that, even if it were to consider bankruptcy proceedings, it would first have to consider its own policy on this and Miss B’s potential vulnerability. Even if the Council then took bankruptcy action Miss B would be able to challenge it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider a matter that was decided in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman