Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept that he was occupying a business premises which it has charged him at the empty rate for business rates. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X runs a business from a site which he was responsible for paying business rates on in 2020. The Council sent him a rates bill charged at the empty business rates for the period in 2020 when he says he was in occupation. This means he did not receive the retail discount he would have received if he was charged at the occupied rate.

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’. 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:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X received a business rates bill from the Council after he rented the premises to another company in 2021. The Council charged him at the empty rate for the period in 2020 when there was no tenant in occupation as he is the landlord of the premises. He disputed the bill and told the Council that he was operating a pop-up business from the site during this period and so he should have been charged at the occupied rate with a retail discount applied.
6. The Council rejected his challenge because it says there was insufficient evidence that the premises were occupied during this period. It considered the evidence he provided but said the use was too transient to meet the requirements.
7. There is no right of appeal for liability for business rates. Where a Council seeks a liability order in the magistrates court the liable party can offer a defence against the order if he has sufficient evidence. Mr X has paid the empty rate bill and so his liability for the period has been established.
8. The Ombudsman cannot decide who is liable for business rates or question the judgement of the Council’s officers where the proper procedures have been followed. In this case only the court could decide who is liable, but no order has been obtained.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a different outcome for the complainant.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman