West Devon Borough Council (19 016 827)

Category : Benefits and tax > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 10 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delayed billing of non-domestic rates. This is because fault by the Council has not caused significant enough personal injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the Council failed to send suitable billing and chasers for non-domestic rates.
  2. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her contacts to query the non-domestic rate bills and the delays in handling her complaint.
  3. Ms X says the Council’s failure to respond to her queries caused her to make misrepresentations in the sale of her property in September 2018. Ms X says this caused her to incur £2,403 worth of legal representation charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
  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:
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I have written to Ms X with my draft decision and given her an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms X was responsible for three properties within one building from July 2016 to September 2018.
  2. Ms X says she was unaware that she was responsible for any property other than number 6.
  3. Ms X says the Council issued a demand for payment of non-domestic rates for number 7 and 7A in 2016. Ms X complains that she queried these charges and the Council failed to provide any response or further requests for payment.
  4. In September 2018 Ms X sold the property.
  5. The Council issued a bill for the non-domestic charges for number 7 and 7A in February 2019 covering July 2016 to September 2018.
  6. Ms X sought legal representation following contact from the Council as she had concerns that she misrepresented the property within the sale in September 2018.

Analysis

  1. The Council raised non-domestic rates for number 6 during Ms X’s occupation of the property. The Council did not pursue non-domestic charges for numbers 7 and 7A, which are within the same building, until February 2019. However, the Council has waived the total non-domestic rates charges of £2,844.95 for numbers 7 and 7A.
  2. Ms X complains that a lack of information and responses from the Council has caused her to incur £2,403 in legal charges. Ms X says had the Council responded she would not have needed to enlist a solicitor over the misrepresentation for the sale of the property.
  3. As the building owner, Ms X ought to have been aware of the situation regarding non-domestic rates and the number of properties within her building. Any issue relating to the sale is a matter between Ms X and her solicitor.
  4. I would consider Ms X has not experienced a personal injustice as the Council has removed charges which are £441.95 greater than the legal costs Ms X has incurred. Had the Council responded to Ms X’s contact in 2016 it is likely she would have paid the non-domestic rates but not needed legal representation. Ms X would have been worse off by £441.95 had there been no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. My decision is that the Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delayed billing of non-domestic rates. This is because fault by the Council has not caused significant enough personal injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings