Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of a business rates debt. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge the rateable value of the property.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says he has been harassed for bogus business rate demands generated by the Council from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) business rate listing.
2. Mr B says this has caused him much stress and loss of time, including time spent at the Magistrates Court.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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. We 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal, or to have appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Valuation Tribunal can consider appeals against a VOA decision on the rateable value of a property.
7. But the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the VOA. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
8. Finally, we cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• Complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council dated 11 and 23 September, and 4 and 8 October;
• Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. Business rates are a local tax on business premises.
11. The VOA keeps the business rating list. It decides if a property should be rated, the rateable value and the date each property enters and leaves the rating list.
12. To calculate business rates, you take a property’s ‘rateable value’, as set by the VOA, and the ‘rate poundage’, set by Parliament.
13. The law requires councils to bill and collect business rates using the information entered on the rating list. If people do not pay their business rates, councils will send a reminder. If payment is still not made, councils may issue a summons seeking a Liability Order from the Magistrates Court.

What happened

14. The Council issued Mr B with a summons for business rates it believed he was liable for.
15. The day before the liability order hearing at the Magistrates Court, Mr B submitted information to the Council and the Court to challenge the debt. The Council says its Business Rates team did not have the opportunity to review the documentation prior to the hearing. Mr B says the copy documents he submitted to the Court and Council were documents he had previously been given by the Council and VOA.
16. There were then delays at court, due to other cases being heard first. The Council discussed the delay with the clerk of the court. It was decided to adjourn Mr B’s case, which would also give the Council time to consider the information Mr B had submitted.
17. The Council reviewed the information, and communicated with the VOA. The VOA decided the store area for which Mr B was being billed should be split into two rating assessments. Mr B was therefore made liable for a smaller area. The Council offered an instalment payment arrangement for the outstanding debt and also withdrew the summons.

Assessment

18. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the complaint further. This is because the Council is not responsible for setting the rateable value of the property; that is the role of the VOA. The Council merely bills and collects the resultant business rate, based on the information contained in the VOA’s rating list.
19. If Mr B wishes to complain about the actions of the VOA, then he may contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
20. In addition, if Mr B disagreed with the rateable value set by the VOA, and believed the existing available information proved the value was wrong, then it was open to him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. I see no reason why Mr B should not be expected to have used the right of appeal put in place by Parliament, so the restriction detailed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above applies to the complaint.
21. Finally, and with reference to paragraph 8 above, we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the conduct of the court proceedings or what happened in court.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect Mr B to have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge the rateable value of the property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman