Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s business not receiving business rates relief in 2022/23. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not automatically give her business the retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief and did not publicise that relief scheme adequately for her to ask for it in time. She says this meant her business paid significantly more rates in 2022/23 than it need have.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 information available online about the relevant business rates relief scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. For the 2022/23 financial year the government introduced a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Rates Relief Scheme. This reduced some businesses’ rates.
6. Mrs X says the Council had given her retail, hospitality and leisure (RHL) relief automatically for the two previous years but did not do so in 2022/23. However, the RHL relief scheme did not exist in previous years. Mrs X’s business might have received different reliefs previously: the retail discount in 2020/21 and the expanded retail discount in 2021/22. The RHL relief for 2022/23 was a new scheme. So we would not necessarily expect the new relief to be awarded automatically just because previous, different, reliefs had been.
7. Government guidance to councils about the scheme said, “The government anticipates that local authorities will include details of the relief to be provided to eligible ratepayers for 2022/23 in their bills for the beginning of the 2022/23 billing cycle.” The Council said it did this by including in the explanatory notes issued with bills a statement that the government often introduces temporary reliefs and ratepayers could get details from the Council or from central government or council websites.
8. Mrs X is dissatisfied the information with the bill did not expressly mention the RHL relief although it mentioned some other reliefs. The Council said it instead gave the information in the form described above because the RHL scheme was a temporary scheme. I infer the relief schemes expressly described in the explanatory notes were permanent ones.
9. It is not unusual for governments to introduce or change temporary relief schemes during a financial year. Therefore, I understand why the Council might have considered it prudent to suggest ratepayers contact it or check websites for information about such schemes. It is understandable that information about relief schemes on the printed bills would not include temporary schemes.
10. I consider the Council did enough to alert ratepayers that there might be relief schemes not mentioned on the bill. That was enough reasonably to prompt a ratepayer to contact the Council, especially if their bill had increased markedly due to the absence of a previous relief.
11. By the time Mrs X contacted the Council, the RHL scheme had closed so the Council said it could not give relief retrospectively. There was no fault in that.
12. Mrs X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council not awarding relief retrospectively or in the Council’s publicity arrangements. In those circumstances, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman