Summary: Miss D complained how the Council handled her business rates account. She says the Council failed to respond to her emails, it wrote to an old address, and it failed to contact the other two owners with joint responsibility. We find the Council was at fault for failing to contact the other two owners at their contact address. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Miss D complained how the Council handled her business rates account. She says the Council failed to respond to her emails when she told it about the change in circumstances, it wrote to an old address, and it failed to contact the other two owners with joint responsibility.
2. Miss D says she had to pay the bailiffs fees because of the Council’s failures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Miss D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

7. Business rates is the tax on local business premises. Each property is given a rateable value by the District Valuer. The Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) decides if a property should be rated and its rateable value. 
8. If a business property is empty, the owner does not have to pay business rates for three months. Industrial premises get a six-month rate free period. After that, unless an exemption applies, the property is charged full rates.
9. A council can get a liability order from the Magistrates Court for non-payment of business rates. A liability order gives a council legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include using bailiffs acting on the Council’s behalf.

What happened

10. Miss D is the owner of a business premises with two other people. She emailed the Council in July 2021 and said the premises was empty and she wanted to apply for empty business rates. The Council did not respond to this email, but it created a new account.
11. Miss D emailed the Council in March 2022 and said new tenants were using the premises. She asked it to recalculate the business rates and she provided her telephone number.
12. The Council sent bills, reminder notices and a court summons to the address of the premises and to the contact address it had on file for Miss D. As it did not receive a response, it applied to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. The Court granted the order, and the Council passed the matter to the bailiffs. The bailiffs attended an address it had for Miss D from the Council’s records. Miss D has not lived at this address for many years, but the new owner contacted her about the visit. She paid the bailiffs fees.
13. Miss D complained to the Council. She said it had failed to respond to her emails, and therefore she assumed she had no business rates to pay. She said she wanted it to refund the £313 she paid to the bailiffs.
14. The Council responded to Miss D’s complaint. It said when it received her email in July 2021, it created an account for the known owner of the premises from its records. It said it had not received any communication to advise she had bought the premises and her details were not held on file. It said it continued to bill the previous owners until January 2022 when it was made aware this was incorrect. It carried out a land registry search which confirmed Miss D and two other people were the owners. It issued bills, reminders, and a court summons to the contact address.
15. The Council said as it billed the last known contact address, it could not cancel the recovery action and the costs incurred from the enforcement action.
16. Miss D responded and said it failed to contact the two other owners. She also said when it received her email in July 2021, it created an account without emailing her back.
17. The Council issued its final response to Miss D’s complaint. It said there was no requirement within its agreed procedures to respond to emails regarding changes in occupancy. It said when it issues a revised bill, this is regarded as confirmation of an amendment to an account. However, it accepted it could have sent her a courtesy email to confirm a revised bill had been issued. It agreed to review its process moving forward. It also said it contacted all liable parties on the account.

Back to top

Analysis

18. The Council did not respond to Miss D’s emails from July 2021 and March 2022. However, it did act on the information from her emails by creating a new account and sending copies of the bills to the registered business address and the contact address for Miss D it had on file. This is in line with its normal procedures.
19. The Council has provided me with a copy of the lease for the premises. This confirms the contact address for Miss D. The Council was not at fault for using the information it had on the lease when corresponding with Miss D. It is open to Miss D to provide the Council with an alternative contact address if she wishes.
20. However, the Council failed to send the other two owners with joint responsibility any correspondence at their contact address. This is fault. The Council had this information from the lease. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it said it should have added the contact address for the other two owners to the file and it was an administrative error it failed to do so. If the Council had acted without fault, the other two owners would have received the bills at their contact address. It is more likely than not they would have paid and enforcement action would have been avoided as Miss D has never disputed her liability for the business rates. The Council should therefore apologise to Miss D for the frustration caused and reimburse her the £313 she paid for the bailiffs.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 22 June 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss D.
• Reimburse Miss D the £313 she paid for the bailiffs.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman