Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his business rates liability. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence that the alleged fault of the Council caused significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his business rates liability.

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 we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant was given an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X leased a business premises between February 2019 and January 2011. The Council says that Mr X owed £6288 in business rates when he left the property. Mr X was aware of the debt but decided not to argue the liability when the Council obtained a Liability Order against him in September 2011.
5. The Council accepts there was unreasonable delay in pursuing the debt after the Liability Order had been obtained. They pursued the debt in 2020 (Mr X had moved house) and the Council responded to his complaint by reducing the outstanding debt to £3829 (as a result of small business rate relief) which remains payable.
6. Mr X had the opportunity to dispute the debt in 2011 at the Liability Order hearing. The Council’s subsequent enforcement delay did not, in my view, cause a significant injustice to Mr X as he had to pay the bill in any event.
7. Whilst the debt has been reduced, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine the accuracy of the debt; only a court can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I do not intend to investigate this complaint because the injustice caused to Mr X by the delay is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman