Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding Mr X pay historic business rates. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on balance that the Council was wrong to say it had got liability orders, or that its calculations of the unpaid rates are wrong. The Council has done enough to recognise Mr X’s alarm and distress from related matters. Mr X can go to court if he wants any liability orders put aside.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has pursued him in 2021 and 2022 for business rates it says he owes from 2009 and 2010. He says this caused him distress and inconvenience, especially about contact from enforcement agents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The business rates were for a business in which Mr X’s involvement ended many years ago. The Council accepted it took too long to pursue Mr X. It apologised and said it is now devoting more resources to this work.
9. Unlike contractual debts, there is no time limit on the Council seeking payment of business rates. Neither the Council nor Mr X knows the whereabouts of the other person involved in the former business. However, as Mr X’s name was on the business rates account, the Council is entitled to pursue him if it believes there are unpaid rates.
10. We cannot investigate a complaint about the Council issuing summonses or getting liability orders, for the reasons in paragraph 4. However, that is not quite what Mr X is complaining about. Rather, Mr X questions whether the Council got liability orders, as it has not produced them. The Council no longer has copies of the summonses or of the court listing details of subsequent court hearings for liability orders. Typically, councils get liability orders for a number of debtors together. The Council cites its records showing the dates of summonses and dated notes of telephone calls it says it had with Mr X then, in which Mr X was aware of the summonses. Mr X told me he did not recall such conversations. However, it is unlikely we could conclude those records are inaccurate on the balance of probabilities.
11. The Council says its records show it moved Mr X’s business rates accounts to the liability order stage on the dates of the court hearings, so it believes the court granted liability orders. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it likely the Council would have got liability orders in such circumstances, in case any payment arrangements made with Mr X failed. Councils typically do this to protect their position. Therefore, although it would be better if the Council had original documentary evidence, I do not fault the Council’s view that it got liability orders so it can now seek payment from Mr X.
12. The passage of time means Mr X does not have records of what he paid and when. He says this prevents him disputing the Council’s version of how much he owes. I recognise that is problematic. However, the Council based its calculations on what the business rates were for the relevant years and on what appear to be records from the time of how much was paid. It is unlikely any investigation by the Ombudsman would be able to decide the Council’s calculations are wrong, especially on matters dating back so long. Therefore it is unlikely we would fault the Council for demanding Mr X pay the outstanding amount it calculated.
13. If Mr X believes the Council is wrong about the amount owed, he can apply to the courts to have any liability orders set aside. Mr X could reasonably do this because, while he does not have copies of liability orders, he could use the information about the orders’ dates and which court was involved.
14. After Mr X complained, the Council deducted £991 from the debt. I consider that is satisfactory remedy for: Mr X’s justified anger the Council took so long to chase the debt; the distress to him and his family from receiving correspondence from the Council’s enforcement agents; their fear that enforcement agents might come to their home over the Christmas period; and Mr X’s upset when he felt the Council wrongly accused him of trying to avoid the debt. In the circumstances, I do not fault the Council for offsetting the £991 payment against the debt.
15. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint-handling and communications about the matter. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures and communications, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
16. The Council suggested Mr X could pay the debt in monthly instalments. It is for the Council and Mr X to work out the details of any payment arrangement. Any potential complaint that an instalment arrangement is too onerous would be a new matter Mr X should first take through the Council’s complaint procedure before bringing it to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely, on balance, we could reach a clear enough view now that the Council was wrong to say it had liability orders, or that its calculations of the unpaid rates are wrong. The Council’s deduction of £991 adequately remedies Mr X’s alarm and distress from how the Council dealt with him in 2021 and 2022. Mr X can reasonably go to court if he wants any liability orders put aside.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman