Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communications regarding Mr X’s Business Improvement District levy. The Council has waived extra charges it applied. We cannot expect to achieve more than that. The law prevents us investigating the part of the complaint about a court summons.

The complaint

1. Mr X says he did not receive some communications seeking payment of his Business Improvement District levy and a related court summons. Meanwhile the Council had added extra charges for sending reminders and the court summons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says it sent the bill and reminder communications, and the court summons, correctly, so it does not accept fault. However, as a goodwill gesture, the Council waived the £209.25 it had charged Mr X for issuing for reminders and the summons. Mr X will still have to pay the levy, but that would have been the case anyway, even without any alleged fault by the Council.
8. The main impact, in practical terms, of the alleged fault in sending communications was the extra costs on top of the normal bill. The Council has waived those costs. I cannot reasonably expect to achieve more on that point. Mr X might also have had some concern about the matter, but I do not consider that in itself significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint when the extra charges have been waived. It would therefore be disproportionate for us to investigate whether the Council was at fault.
9. A summons is the start of court action. So, as paragraph 2 explained, the law prevents us considering whether the Council issued the summons properly.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot reasonably expect to achieve significantly more regarding the demands. The law prevents us considering the summons.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman