Southampton City Council (20 008 816)
Category : Benefits and tax > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 24 Feb 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to award his company small business rate relief. This is because this issue hinges around a question of liability which only the courts can determine.
The complaint
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants or another agency is best placed to deal with the issue (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and I have sent him my draft decision on it for his comments.
What I found
- Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to award small business rate relief (SBRR) to his business and about its decision to transfer liability for business rates at his business premises to a business Mr X says is not his. Mr X says this business is operated by his ex-wife.
- Mr X wants the Council to reverse its decision on his SBRR application and for it to recognise his business as the liable party for business rates.
- The Council considered Mr X’s application for SBRR. It concluded that Mr X’s business was part of, or the same as, another business which was already in receipt of SBRR. The Council explained it could not therefore award SBRR to Mr X. The Council also changed the liability on the business rates account, making Mr X’s ex-wife’s business the liable party instead of Mr X personally.
Analysis
- The Council considered Mr X’s application and came to a decision it is entitled to reach. We cannot question the merits of that decision in the absence of fault in the Council’s consideration. The information seen does not suggest such fault and we cannot investigate just because Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision.
- Additionally, the Council’s decision not to award Mr X SBRR rests on its assessment that a company already in receipt of SBRR is also the company in operation at the premises from which Mr X made his application. At the heart of this issue therefore is a dispute about liability which we are unable to determine. A dispute about liability can only be decided in the magistrates’ court, as a defence against the grant of a liability order.
- I do not consider therefore that we can achieve the outcome Mr X seeks and so we will not investigate.
Final decision
- My decision is we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s decision not to award SBRR is based on its assessment of liability for business rates which is a matter only the courts can determine. We cannot therefore achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman