Summary: Mr X complains that the Council charged him business rates for a business he does not own, delayed resolving the matter, and delayed responding to his Subject Access Request. He says this caused stress, put him under undue pressure, and cost time and trouble. The Ombudsman largely does not find the Council at fault. However, the Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to respond to Mr X’s emails within the timeframe it set out. This caused Mr X injustice. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for this. We are satisfied that this apology remedies the injustice caused. The Ombudsman will not investigate the part of Mr X’s complaint about the Subject Access Request because it has already been investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council:
1. charged him business rates for a business he does not own;
2. delayed resolving the matter; and,
3. delayed responding to his Subject Access Request.
2. Mr X says this caused stress, put him under undue pressure, and cost time and trouble chasing the Council. He also says he incurred costs getting legal advice.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated parts a and b of this complaint. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating part c of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

10. Non-domestic rates or business rates are the local tax on business premises. Councils are responsible for billing and collecting business rates.

What happened

11. Mr X owns a company.
12. In October 2019, the Council asked the landlord of a business premises for details of who occupied that premises in order to charge that company for business rates. The landlord provided a company name.
13. That month, the Council sent an invoice for business rates to Mr X’s company.
14. In November, Mr X told the Council that although the company names were very similar, it had incorrect information: his company did not occupy that premises. The Council said it would investigate.
15. A week later, the Council asked the landlord of the premises for a copy of the lease to show which company occupied the premises in question. On the same day, Mr X chased the Council as he had not heard anything. The Council told Mr X the investigation was ongoing.
16. At the beginning of December, Mr X chased the Council as he had not heard anything.
17. The Council received the lease from the landlord with details of the occupying business. It then asked the landlord for more information.
18. At the end of December, Mr X contacted the Council twice because he had not heard anything. The Council said the matter would be addressed after Christmas, as soon as the team manager returned to work.
19. In early January 2020, Mr X complained to the Council.
20. A few days later, the Council told Mr X it cancelled his liability for business rates because it had waited some time for a response from the landlord and had not received a response.
21. The Council sent its complaint response that day. It explained that the landlord had given Mr X’s company’s name, and a check with Companies House showed only one business with the exact name given by the landlord. This was Mr X’s company. The Council said it took the information from the landlord in good faith.
22. The Council apologised for failing to respond to Mr X’s emails within the 14 days it said it would respond. It explained there had been a backlog of work. It upheld the part of Mr X’s complaint about emails not being answered within the corporate timeframe.
23. Mr X asked that his complaint was dealt with at stage two of the complaints procedure.
24. A week later, the landlord told the Council that the original information they provided was incorrect and was due to a clerical error.
25. The Council sent its stage two complaint response in early February. It explained its usual process is that a landlord tells the Council the name of the company occupying a business premises. It said that provided there are no indications to the contrary, and the company is registered at Companies House, it would generate a demand for business rates.
26. The Council explained that after it received the lease from the landlord, it asked for more information. It said the landlord did not provide this information promptly, so it decided to cancel Mr X’s liability for the business rates. The Council said it later got information from the landlord that the information they gave the Council was wrong. It said it was regrettable that it took time to resolve this.
27. The Council said the cause of Mr X’s complaint was not its fault because it acted in good faith, based on information from the landlord. It said it carried out its investigation promptly but was delayed because the landlord did not respond.

Analysis

Charging Mr X for business rates

28. Mr X complains that the Council charged him business rates for a business he does not own (part a of the complaint).
29. I find that the Council acted on the information from the landlord to establish the identity of the occupying business. The Council sent Mr X’s company a charge for business rates based on this information. I find that the Council acted in good faith.
30. It is true to say that the Council sent Mr X’s company an invoice for business rates it was not liable for. However, I do not find this is fault. The Council acted on information from the landlord as it should have: it is not the Council’s fault that this information was wrong.
31. The names of Mr X’s company and the company actually occupying the premises are very, very similar.
32. Once Mr X told the Council it had incorrect information, the Council acted on this to rectify it.
33. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.
34. Mr X complains that the Council never apologised for creating this situation. I do not find that the Council created this situation. I find that the landlord created this situation by providing inaccurate information. I find that the Council rectified the situation appropriately.

Delays

35. Mr X complains that the Council delayed resolving the matter (part b of the complaint). He says he had to chase the Council because it did not contact him or keep him informed.
36. I do not find that the Council could have completed its investigation any quicker than it did. This is because the Council was kept waiting by the landlord who did not provide the information in a timely manner.
37. The Council decided to cancel Mr X’s liability for the rates before it finally heard back from the landlord that they had provided inaccurate information. I find it is good practice that the Council chose to act rather than wait for the landlord to provide this information.
38. Having said that, I find that the Council should have responded to Mr X’s emails when it said it would. This would have kept Mr X updated.
39. This is fault. I consider this fault caused Mr X injustice because it caused avoidable distress and he spent time and trouble chasing the Council.
40. The Council has apologised for failing to respond to Mr X’s emails within 14 days it said it would respond. I am satisfied that this apology is a suitable remedy for the injustice outlined above.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I uphold the part of Mr X’s complaint about failures to respond to his emails. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice. I am satisfied that the Council’s apology remedies the injustice caused.
42. I do not uphold the rest of Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

43. Mr X complains that the Council delayed responding to his Subject Access Request (part c of the complaint).
44. As I have said in paragraph eight, the Ombudsman normally expects someone to refer a complaint about data/data protection to the Information Commissioner.
45. Mr X says he has already complained to the Information Commissioner who has investigated the complaint. For this reason, I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman