Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in informing him he would need to pay business rates for the 2020/21 financial year as the matter did not cause him significant injustice. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a court summons as the matter falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council informed him he did not have to pay business rates for the 2020/21 financial year unless told otherwise. However it then waited almost a year to confirm he would have to pay and issued a court summons for non-payment before his complaint was resolved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council informed Mr X at the earliest possible opportunity that he may not have to pay business rates due to new reliefs brought in to help small businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic. I have seen nothing to suggest it did this for any other reason than to try to help Mr X. The Council did however agree to notify him if he did not qualify for the relief but did not do so until it issued Mr X his bill for the 2021/22 financial year.
7. While Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s delay I do not consider it caused him significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation. There is no suggestion the Council was wrong in its decision that Mr X did not qualify for the relief and as the liable party the Council has a duty to collect payment from him. The Council did not agree to put the outstanding bill on hold while it dealt with his complaint and we cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about its issue of a court summons as this amounts to the start of court action and therefore falls outside our jurisdiction as set out at Paragraph 3.
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s delay in informing Mr X he would have to pay business rates did not cause him significant injustice. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a court summons for unpaid business rates.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman