Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council wrongly holding her liable for business rates. This is because the court has accepted her liability and if she disputes its decision it would be reasonable for her to apply to set aside the liability order. Any delay by the Council in deciding Mrs X’s application for hardship relief did not cause significant injustice and does not therefore warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council has held her personally liable for business rates for premises occupied by her company. She also complains the Council delayed in dealing with her application for hardship relief.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Liability for business rates is determined by the courts as part of an application by a local authority for a liability order. The Council has applied to the court for a liability order against Mrs X and the court granted the order. If Mrs X believes she is not liable it would be reasonable for her to apply to the court to set the liability order aside.
6. The Council disputes the date of Mrs X’s application for hardship relief but even taking the date provided by the Council it appears it took more than nine months to decide her application. This may be fault but it has not caused Mrs X significant injustice so the issue does not warrant further investigation. The Council has considered the information Mrs X provided but decided she does not qualify for hardship relief under its scheme. Mrs X has not therefore been left without the relief for longer than she should have.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the court to set aside the liability order. Any delay by the Council in deciding her application for hardship relief has not caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman