Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling and administration of business rates for a site Mr X occupied. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling and administration of business rates for a site he occupied.

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.
3. 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)
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 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling and administration of business rates between May 2020 and September 2023. Mr X the first time he became aware there was a debt due was in March 2020.
9. Evidence shows Mr X did contact the Council several times throughout the period to seek advice regarding payment of the debt owed. The Council did not respond to most of Mr X’s correspondence.
10. In April 2022, the Council obtained a liability order. Therefore, any complaint about the Council issuing a demand for payment is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as court proceedings have taken place. If Mr X wished to dispute the liability, there was an opportunity for him to contest the proceedings.
11. Events leading up to the liability order are within our jurisdiction. However, the events in questioned happened more than 12 months ago and Mr X did not provide any reasons for why he did not complain to us earlier.
12. The evidence does suggest Mr X was following the complaints process and allowing the Council the opportunity to respond to his concerns. Mr X appears to have done this in good faith, so this is potentially a good reason to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
13. However, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
14. It is acknowledged the Council’s complaint investigation identified some fault, namely:
• the Council should have identified Mr X’s occupation earlier; and
• the Council should have been more proactive with engaging with Mr X.
15. I am satisfied that even if the Council had identified Mr X’s occupation earlier, this is likely to have resulted in the same outcome for Mr X. This is because he would still be required to pay the business rates that were due at the time. Therefore, an investigation would not lead to any different outcome.
16. Similarly, if the Council had communicated with Mr X better during the period in question, I don’t consider it is possible to say this would have resulted in a different outcome for Mr X. This is because the Council was not required to negotiate any payment plan and it remains the case the business rates were due. Again, if Mr X wished to dispute his liability for the charges, he could have contested proceedings when the Council sought the liability order.
17. Mr X has also provided evidence the site has since been reassessed by the Valuation Office Agency. This has resulted in the site being of a rateable value below the threshold where business rates are charge from October 2019 onwards. Mr X has indicated the Council has been told to repay any overpayments made following this decision. This appears reasonable in the circumstances and it an investigation is not likely to achieve any further worthwhile outcomes.
18. While I am sympathetic to the frustrations caused to Mr X by the lack of communication from the Council, I do not consider it would be a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate the complaint for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman