Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s business rates. The argument about how much business rates Mr X should pay could reasonably be raised in court. We cannot consider what happened in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council demanded business rates in respect of a property that should either have been liable for council tax rather than business rates or have been treated as eligible for small business rates relief. He says this caused the stress of dealing with demands he believes are inaccurate and untruthful and he spent time and trouble dealing with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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 the complainant and information on the Valuation Office Agency’s website about the address in question.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council was wrong to charge business rates for his premises at the unoccupied property rate. He argues the Council should instead have either:
1. Treated the premises as residential, therefore liable for council tax, not business rates; or
2. If charging business rates, treated the premises as occupied and eligible for small business rates relief (SBRR), not unoccupied.
7. On point a), the Council could only charge council tax if the Valuation Office Agency (VOA, a central government body independent of the Council) had added the premises to the council tax list for the relevant period. The VOA had not done that. So there appears to be no fault in the Council not doing point a).
8. Point b) is an argument about whether the Council should have applied the unoccupied rate or SBRR to the premises. Therefore it is a dispute about whether Mr X is liable for the amount the Council calculated. The Council can only recover unpaid business rates if it gets a court order. So, if Mr X believes the Council’s calculation was wrong, he could reasonably decline to pay and wait for the Council to take court action. He could then argue his case in court and the court would decide the matter. So, for the reasons given in paragraph 2, we should not investigate this point.
9. Here, I understand the Council took some court action. The restriction in paragraph 3 applies applies to the commencement and conduct of court action. That means we cannot cannot consider any court action on this matter.
10. Either way, whether or not the court has already decided what Mr X should pay, this is not a matter for the Ombudsman to decide.
11. Mr X also sought to complain to us about a magistrates’ court. This relates to a court hearing that Mr X says did not meet his disability-related needs. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has no power to consider complaints about the actions of courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the argument about how much Mr X is liable for could reasonably be raised in court. We cannot consider what happened in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman