Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council holding him liable for business rates because the court has confirmed his company’s liability and Mr X would have to apply to the court to set aside the liability order. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not responding to his email disputing liability because I cannot say, on balance, that this caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly held his company liable for business rates for premises it has nothing to do with. He says the Council failed to respond to his email disputing liability and applied to the court for a liability order before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to visit his former home address, which he had rented out, to recover payment. Mr X says that as a result of the actions of the Council’s bailiffs his tenants moved out of the property causing him a loss of £1,500 per month in rent.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. The Council accepts fault in not dealing with Mr X’s email disputing liability and has explained the reasons the email was not uploaded to uploaded to the case. But I cannot say on balance that this caused Mr X significant injustice.
6. The Council is now aware of the email and Mr X’s subsequent complaints which dispute liability for business rates but it remains of the view that Mr X’s company is liable for them. It took the case to the magistrates’ court and the court confirmed the company’s liability and issued a liability order.
7. We could not say that had the Council responded to Mr X’s email at the time, it would have accepted his company was not liable or that Mr X would have accepted it was and paid the outstanding business rates owed.
8. On balance it is therefore more likely than not that the Council would still have applied to the court for a liability order, that the court would have granted the order, that Mr X would not have paid the business rates and that the Council would have instructed bailiffs to recover payment. The outcome would therefore have been the same and Mr X would still have gone to time and effort to dispute his company’s liability.
9. In his complaint Mr X alleges improper conduct and assault by the Council’s bailiffs when it visited his former home address but any injustice from this point is to his tenants, not Mr X himself. Mr X confirmed that he did not have his tenants’ consent to pursue this point on their behalf, nor to share their details with the Council so it could contact them to agree a remedy. If they wish to pursue a complaint they may do so separately.
10. Mr X argues that his tenants left the property, resulting in a loss of £1,500 in income per month, as a result of the bailiffs’ visit. But we would not recommend the Council compensates him for these losses as they were not the direct result of fault by the Council and loss of earnings is an issue which the courts are better placed to determine in any event.
11. The Council has now placed any further recovery action on hold in response to Mr X’s complaint, agreed to waive the summons costs of £179.50 and has contacted the Valuation Office Agency, which made the decision to add the premises to the rating list, in an attempt to reduce the amount his company owes. Mr X is unhappy with this and wants the Council to strike out the liability order but this is an outcome only the courts can achieve. Mr X may therefore wish to apply to the court to set aside the liability order.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not say, on balance, that the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman