Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint the Council gave the Valuation Office Agency the wrong information about his business. This is because the injustice he suffered did not arise from the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council incorrectly told the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) his business had expanded. As a result, he ended up paying £4,500 for a surveyor to successfully challenge the £20,000 bill for business rates.
2. Mr C says this bill would not have been needed if the Council had not given the VOA incorrect information. As a result, he would like the Council to pay the surveyor’s costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 Council’s actions have not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the assessment I have:

• considered the complaint by Mr C, and the complaint correspondence between Mr C and the Council;
• issued a draft decision inviting Mr C to comment; and
• considered Mr C’s response to the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C says he received a bill for business rates for £20,000 after not paying for 11 years. He says the Council then told him he had to pay £1,000 on account to stop enforcement and recovery action.
6. Business rates is a local tax on business premises. The VOA keeps the business rating list and decides if a property should be rated, the rateable value and the date each property enters and leaves the list. The Council then collects business rates based on a simple calculation set by central government
7. Mr C says when he called the VOA, it told him to instruct a professional surveyor for a ‘Check Challenge’ process. This would have taken nine months therefore he decided to instruct his own surveyor who cost him £4,500.
8. Mr C says the VOA later decided his business was zero rated and he did not owe any money. He also says it told him the reason for the initial revaluation was because the Council had reported his business had expanded. Mr C says this was untrue because the Council had granted his business planning permission three years earlier in 2016, and it had not recently expanded, so the Council’s incorrect information created the need for him to instruct the surveyor.
9. Correspondence shows the Council’s business rating team became aware in June 2019 Mr C had received planning permission in 2016 to expand the land used for his business into adjoining fields. It told the VOA; but there is nothing to suggest this information was wrong or that it was the Council’s fault Mr C then received a business rates bill. Mr C does not dispute the land area his business uses had increased after he got planning permission, so the Council was not wrong to tell the VOA that, albeit later.
10. In response to Mr C’s complaint to it, the Council correctly said it is not its responsibility to set the business rates. The VOA decided to change the entry for Mr C’s business in the rating list. The Council’s role is only to produce a business rates bill according to information from the VOA and to collect the money. When the VOA decided Mr C’s business did not have to pay any money the Council refunded him the £1,000 he had paid.
11. The Council also said it never threatened the Mr C with enforcement agents. As Mr C has acknowledged, a ratepayer should make payments of business rates until any dispute about them is resolved, as it was in this case. The Council would not have been wrong to advise him not making at least some payment would risk the Council taking recovery action, but that does not amount to a threat.
12. Correspondence also shows the Council told Mr C, in response to him asking for recommendations, it was his choice to instruct a surveyor, and it would likely involve charges. Mr C has said he would like the Council to pay the bill for the surveyor. Mr C chose to instruct a surveyor, and it was not the Council which told him to do so. There is no basis for the Ombudsman to investigate this point or recommend the Council pays for Mr C’s surveyor.
13. I recognise Mr C thinks the information the Council sent to the VOA was incorrect and that this is what caused all the problems in the first place. However, there is no evidence of this. The grant of planning permission was sufficient change to the business premises for the Council to notify the VOA. It was the VOA’s decision to change the rating list, not the Council’s. Once the VOA told the Council about the change it made to the rating list, it was the Council’s duty to recover the resulting business rates.
14. The fact the VOA later revised the charges after Mr C appealed does not mean the Council was incorrect. If Mr C wants to recover his costs, it is open to him to complain to the VOA as it is the body which made the entry in the rating list with which he disagreed.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because any injustice Mr C suffered did not result directly from actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman