Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Business Improvement District levy as liability was best decided by the court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained she is not liable to pay a Business Improvement District (BID) levy as the rateable value of her property is below the threshold at which liability begins. Mrs X says paying the levy put financial strain on her business and wants the money to be refunded to her.

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 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X chose to pay the levy and so has essentially accepted liability for it in so doing.
6. It was open to Mrs X not to pay and to present her case against liability in court, where the dispute would have ended up, had the Council taken action for non-payment.
7. We consider the court was best placed to decide whether Mrs X was liable for the levy or not, and as we cannot ask the Council to refund the money Mrs X has paid, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the liability dispute was best resolved in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman