Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the action the Council took in relation to unpaid business rates. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s business rates. He said the Council failed to collect direct debits as it had done in previous years and, after three months, passed the full year’s debt to an enforcement agency.
2. As a result, the Council is now additionally seeking enforcement fees from Mr X.
3. Mr X also complained the Council refused to allow Ms Y to assist with the matter whilst he was unwell.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms Y, on behalf of Mr X, and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council sent a business rates bill in March 2023. This was addressed to Mr X, care of Ms Z and includes the name of Mr X’s business. The Council tried to collect a direct debit for the first of two monthly instalments in April, but this was unsuccessful. It issued a revised bill in April to reflect the non-payment. In May the bank confirmed the direct debit had been cancelled, following which the Council issued a revised bill with other methods to pay listed on the back. In June, it issued a reminder notice and in July sent a final notice for the full year’s business rates. It did not get a response, so issued a Summons in August and obtained a liability order from the magistrates’ court in September, following which it instructed enforcement agents.
8. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. The Council issued bills and reminders appropriately. Although Mr X says he did not receive them, they were properly addressed, and the Council was entitled to deem them as served. It was not fault in those circumstances for the Council to take enforcement action.
10. Where instalments are not paid, councils are entitled to recover the full year’s business rates, even though the tax year had not ended. Therefore, it was not fault for the Council to obtain a liability order for the full amount. In the event, it did agree on a fresh instalment plan in November 2023, when the matter was with enforcement agents.
11. The Council was also not at fault for saying it needed signed authority from Mr X before communicating with Ms Y about the matter. Once it was satisfied it had appropriate consent, it shared information with Ms Y.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council accepted some errors with the dates of letters and reminders sent, for which it apologised. This was an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman