Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y the about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s business rates debt. We find some of Mr Y’s complaint issues are out of our jurisdiction and late for us to consider. We also do not find sufficient evidence of fault in the remaining issues to justify further investigation and further investigation also would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his son (‘Mr Y’) about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s business rates debt. Mr X says the Council:
1. Failed to support and advise Mr Y while he rented a business premises.
2. Failed to conduct annual tenancy reviews.
3. Failed to terminate Mr Y’s tenancy after he informed the Council his business had closed in 2020.
4. Failed to investigate Mr Y’s business rates liability when he disputed the debt in 2020.
5. Failed to manage its property agents who did not respond to Mr Y’s communications in 2020 and 2021.
6. Obtained liability orders for Mr Y’s debt without informing the magistrates he was in a Debt Respite Scheme (‘Breathing Space’), in July 2021 and March 2023.
7. Failed to note Mr Y’s vulnerabilities during enforcement action.
8. Failed to update Mr Y’s debt repayment account after he made payments.
9. Made a decision about Mr Y’s application for hardship relief with a panel which included an officer with prior involvement with his business rates dispute, which compromised the decision-making process.
10. Did not manage Mr Y’s complaint properly as information was shared with officers who were the subject of the complaint, which compromised the investigation.
2. Mr X says Mr Y was left with a substantial business rates debt, suffered financial loss and experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty. Mr X says the situation also negatively impacted Mr Y’s family’s personal circumstances and income.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We will not usually investigate a failure by a council to adhere to its complaints procedure, where we have decided the substantive complaint issues are outside our jurisdiction or matters we will not investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and spoke to him about the complaint. I also considered information provided by the Council.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In late 2019, Mr Y rented a commercial unit from the Council.
11. Mr X said, in March 2020, Mr Y closed his business due to the government’s COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. He said Mr Y then informed the Council’s property management agents (‘the agents’) that he no longer wished to continue with his tenancy agreement. The Council said it did not receive this communication from Mr Y.
12. The available evidence indicates the Council therefore sent Mr Y business rates demands in 2020 and early 2021. As the debt remained unpaid, Mr Y was issued with a court summons. The Council then obtained a magistrate’s court liability order for the outstanding debt in July 2021.
13. Mr X said Mr Y did not receive a copy of the summons and did not attend court. The records indicate Mr Y registered for Breathing Space around this time. Mr X said the Council did not inform the court about the Breathing Space when it applied for the liability order.
14. Mr X said Mr Y then tried to explain the situation with the agents to the Council without success. In 2022, Mr X said he also tried to resolve the debt with the Council and made payments. Mr X said the Council did not update its records to reflect these payments.
15. Mr X said he also informed the Council Mr Y had given notice in 2020 to the agents. He requested the Council to therefore cancel any debts owed from this point onwards. Mr X said the Council would not accept his representations.
16. The evidence indicates, Mr X registered for Breathing Space again in early 2023. The Council then obtained further liability orders in March 2023.
17. Mr X said Mr Y did not apply to have the liability orders set aside in 2021 or 2023, but accepts this option was available to Mr Y. The available evidence shows the Council also did not take any formal enforcement action after obtaining the liability orders.
18. Mr X said the Council later advised Mr Y to apply for hardship relief. Mr X said the panel which considered the application included an officer from the business rates team. Mr X therefore believes the panel’s decision to refuse Mr Y’s application was compromised.
19. In March 2023, Mr X complained to the Council about the issues he has raised with us.
20. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint issues However, it:
• Confirmed it had updated the debt repayment ledger which now showed the correct amounts owed.
• Explained the hardship application panel’s decision was unanimous. It was therefore not compromised by the involvement of the officer mentioned at paragraph 18 (above).
• Confirmed Mr Y later sought a review, and the reviewing panel upheld the original decision.
21. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr Y approached the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

22. I have not investigated:
• 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1 (d) and 1(e) as Mr Y was aware of these issues in from 2020 and 2021 respectively but did not approach the Ombudsman until March 2023. We cannot investigate late complaints for reasons explained at paragraph 4 (above). These complaint issues are therefore out of time, and I have not found good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
• 1(f) in relation to the Council actions in 2021 and 2023 as it relates to the start of court action and what happened in court as explained at paragraph 5 (above). Mr Y also had the option to apply to have the orders set aside but decided not to and I consider it reasonable for him to have done so, as explained at paragraph 6 (above).
• 1(j), for reasons explained at paragraph 7 (above), as majority of Mr X’s substantive complaint issues are outside our jurisdiction.
23. I have not investigated:1(g), 1(h) and 1(i). There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to Mr X to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, as explained at paragraph 3 (above), because the available evidence shows:
• The Council did not take any enforcement action against Mr Y to recoup the debt.
• The Council has updated the repayment account to reflect the correct outstanding balance.
• The hardship panel reached a unanimous decision. This means the application, information, and views of all members of the panel were considered. It was not contingent on the views of the officer from the business rates team alone. The reviewing panel also subsequently upheld the original decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. Mr Y’s complaint issues are out of our jurisdiction and late for us to consider. I also do not find sufficient evidence of fault in the remaining issues to justify further investigation and further investigation also would not lead to a different outcome.
25. I have ended my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman