Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether Mr X’s business property should have had business rates relief for three months. It is more appropriate for the courts to decide this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not given his business property three months’ relief from business rates when it was empty. He says this resulted in the Council demanding more money than it should have and the Council has taken court action.

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. 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)
3. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of court action.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X owns business premises. He rented it to tenants, who were liable for business rates while renting it. After the tenancy ended, Mr X became responsible for the rates. If a business address such as Mr X’s is empty, it need not pay business rates for the first three months it is empty.
7. The Council sent Mr X a rates bill. Mr X said the address was empty so asked for three months’ rates relief. The Council refused that, first saying the tenants had already received the three months’ empty property relief. Mr X argued the tenants had not received that relief. The Council later said Mr X could not receive the empty property relief for the period in question because he had already received it earlier. Mr X reports the Council has started court action against him for unpaid rates he believes he does not owe because he argues he should not owe for three months of the period the Council wants him to pay for.
8. The restriction in paragraph 2 above means we cannot consider the Council’s decision to start court action or any events from the Council issuing the summons to the court deciding the matter (either by issuing a liability order or deciding Mr X is not liable).
9. The underlying point here is whether Mr X is liable for three months’ rates when he argues he should have had empty property relief. The magistrates’ court decides liability for rates. This is not necessarily straightforward legally. A council can apply for a liability order and the person it thinks liable can defend themselves, including arguing they are not liable for everything the Council is demanding.
10. The court is better placed than us to decide such matters. As court action has started, it would be inappropriate for us to investigate the central question the court can decide. Mr X lives abroad. However, as he owns business premises in the Council’s area, it is reasonable to expect he might sometimes have to deal with matters in person. So it is reasonable to expect he could argue his case in court.
11. If, by the time of this decision, the court has already decided Mr X’s liability, we could not change the court’s decision. If the court’s decision is unfavourable to Mr X, he could appeal to a higher court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is more appropriate for the courts to decide the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman