Summary: Miss X complained the Council should not be pursuing her for business rates debts that relate to her company. We found the liability for business rates was outside our jurisdiction. We found no fault in another area of Miss X’s complaint. The Council did delay its response to Miss X’s complaint but its apology was a reasonable remedy for this.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council should not be pursuing her for business rates arrears which were related to her company. She complains the Council should not be pursuing the company’s debts from her personally as it was a limited company and it was dissolved in 2017. Miss X says the use of bailiffs has been has caused her to feel frightened and harassed.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered Miss X’s complaint and the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its actions and its response to the complaint.
6. I considered our jurisdiction to investigate complaints.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss X complained to the Council in September 2019 about contact from bailiffs regarding a business rate debt on behalf of the Council. The business rate bill that bailiffs were chasing was £1419.54 from 2016/17.
9. Miss X told the Council her company was handed over to someone else in early 2017 and the company was a limited company so she was not personally liable for the debt. She also stated she had paid what was owed in full in December 2016. She noted another large payment had been made in May 2016.
10. The Council failed to respond to the complaint initially.
11. In November the Council apologised for the delayed response. It noted that the business had been handed to new owners, but it stated that did not necessarily mean Mrs X had no bill to pay. The Council stated the lease for the building was in Miss X’s name, not the company name. As such she remained liable. The Council provided a copy of the business rates bill from 2016/17 which was addressed to Miss X, not Miss X’s limited company.
12. The Council sent a closing bill of £2488.29 to Miss X in January 2017 and agreed a repayment plan. This was £1244.00 to be paid then, and another £1422.29 within 30 days to bailiffs. The Council stated it only received the first payment.
13. In response, Miss X stated the Council had made an error with her bill. She stated it had agreed to give her Hardship Relief, and this should have reduced the bill by 50%. She noted payments she had made and asked the council to refund what she considered she had overpaid.
14. The Council’s final response to the complaint acknowledged it had agreed to provide Hardship Relief between October 2014 and March 2016. This had been provided. However, when Miss X made an application for business rate relief to continue after March 2016, this was declined. It sent an email to Miss X on 4 July to confirm Hardship Relief had not been granted. The Council provided us with a copy of this.
15. The Council therefore considered the bill to be correct and payable.
16. In response to our enquiries the Council told us Miss X’s company was only incorporated with Companies House on 26 January 2016, but the property had been leased since October 2014. The Council stated, as a result, it concluded the property had been leased by Miss X, rather than the company. This is why its billing was addressed to Miss X personally.
17. It stated it was possible a new lease may have been drawn up after January 2016 when the company was incorporated. The Council asked Miss X to provide the new lease if the company had taken this on in 2016. It stated Miss X had not provided this, so in the absence of this it concluded Miss X remained personally liable for business rates, as the tenant, rather than her company.
18. The Council provided a copy of a summons issued to Miss X in November 2016 for business rates. This was addressed to Miss X personally, rather than to her limited company.

Was there fault

19. Miss X’s position is that the business rates bill sent to her was wrong, because the Council failed to apply Hardship Relief that it had agreed to. She also stated she was no longer involved in her company and she was not personally liable for the company’s debts.
20. The correspondence provided by the Council shows that, while hardship relief had been granted to Miss X in the past, it had notified her that it would not grant hardship relief for 2016/17. There was no fault by the Council in this respect.
21. The bill and summons sent by the Council to Miss X in 2016 were both addressed to Miss X, rather than to her limited company. If Miss X considered she was not personally liable for business rates and it should have been the limited company, it was open to her to challenge her liability to pay in court following the bill in March 2016 or the summons in November 2016. We cannot determine someone’s liability for business rates. This was a matter decided in court following the summons sent to Miss X in 2016. We are prevented from considering a matter that has been decided by the courts. As a result, I found this element of Miss X’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
22. There was some delay responding to Miss X’s complaint. This was fault by the Council, however, the acknowledgement of this and apology it provided in its response was a reasonable remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was some delay in the council’s response to Miss X. Part of Miss X’s complaint was outside our jurisdiction. There was no fault in the remaining issue Miss X raised in her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman