Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems the complainant had in getting a business rates refund. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council delayed providing a business rates refund. He says the Council provided a poor service and an apology is not enough.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• the Council has provided a fair and proportionate response, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In March Mr X asked for a business rates refund. He says he sent a refund request form which included details of his new bank account. The Council has no record of receiving the form. A credit was generated which the Council sent to Mr X’s old bank in March and April. The Council thought it was the correct account because it was the account from which Mr X had paid the rates and the account into which the Council had paid a Covid grant.
5. Mr X kept calling to chase the refund. The Council told him it had been paid. On 8 April Mr X referred to the new account and said he was worried the money had been paid into the old account. The Council failed, at this point, to take details of the new account and on 12 April sent a further refund to the old account.
6. On 19 April the Council obtained the new bank details. It could not pay the refund into the new account until June. This was because it had to wait for the old bank to return the money. In June the Council paid a total refund of £1168 to Mr X’s new account.
7. The Council upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor service. It said it could have communicated better with Mr X and let him know what was happening. It could have taken the new details on 8 April and could have avoided sending the refund on 12 April to the wrong account. It explained officers responded to Mr X’s enquires in good faith but said his calls could have prompted more action.
8. I will not start an investigation because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. It has upheld the complaint, explained what went wrong, apologised and made the refund. I appreciate Mr X had to spend time chasing the refund and getting the refund was more difficult than it should have been. However, he has not suffered a financial loss and once the Council’s response is taken into account there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman