Summary: Mr H complained about the Council’s enforcement action for unpaid business rates. And later actions, including making him a vexatious customer and a fraud investigation. Based on current evidence we find some fault with some of the Council’s communications with Mr H and with a delay in progressing the fraud investigation. These will have contributed to Mr H’s distress. The Council has agreed to carry out our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr H) complains:
• he did not receive a bill or reminders before the Council took enforcement action for unpaid business rates;
• when the Council did contact him, it did not advise him it had a liability order, or that it had passed the debt to enforcement agents;
• enforcement agents contacted his residential tenant, despite her having no involvement in the business rates. He complained about this but never received a response;
• it would have been reasonable to put the enforcement action on hold while his appeal against the decision was heard. But the Council would not do this;
• the Council treated him as a vexatious customer with no prior warning. It gave him a named single point of contact who then did not respond to his contacts;
• the Council started a fraud investigation on opaque grounds. Contrary to guidelines, it did not adequately explain the reasons for the investigation. And it has delayed progressing its investigation;
• his business tenant (Mr J) has asked that he complain on his behalf about the Council’s decisions on his liability for business rates and delay in responding to his contacts.
2. Mr H says he has suffered financial, emotional and reputational injustice. He has also been put to significant avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court, or has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court or appeal (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended). If somebody has appealed, we cannot consider the matter.
6. Complaints about the fitness of an enforcement agents to hold a certificate have a remedy by way of a claim to the County Court. (Section 9 of the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014; Rule 84.20 of the Civil Procedure Rules)
7. The Valuation Tribunal considers appeals against the rateable value of a business property, or whether the property should attract rates. Rateable values are set by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). Before an appeal, an applicant must contact the VOA to ask it to check its decision.
8. The Magistrates’ Court decides business rates liability, if a council applies for a liability order.
9. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. There is an ongoing question of whether Mr H or Mr J is liable for the business rates at the property. Liability is determined by a Magistrates’ Court (if a council needs to enforce payment). As the payee is only ever the subject of the Magistrates’ Court proceedings – they cannot resort to court at their own instigation, this is not an alternative remedy (see paragraphs 5 and 8).
11. But the case law on rates liability is highly technical and this is not an area where the Ombudsman has any expertise. And whoever the Council has made liable for the business rates can challenge this liability by attending a Magistrates’ Court hearing and arguing their case. For these reasons I have not investigated the question of who is liable for the business rates on the property.
12. Mr H appealed the rateable value of the property. So that matter is not something the Ombudsman can consider.
13. Mr H had an alternative remedy for his complaint about the actions of the enforcement agent, that was acting on behalf of the Council. But given the likely time and cost of using the County Court compared to Mr H’s specific complaint about the enforcement agents, I have used my discretion to consider this part of his complaint.
14. I am not investigating the merits of the Council’s fraud investigation. The Ombudsman can however consider whether the Council had some basis for starting an investigation and whether it has avoided undue delay and broadly proceeded in line with good practice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Mr H and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Mr H and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Deciding on the rateable value of a property

17. Non-domestic rates/business rates is the local tax on business premises. Each property in the rating list is given a rateable value by the District Valuer. Some properties are exempt from rating. The VOA, part of central government, keeps the business rating list. The VOA decides if a property should be rated, the rateable value and the date each property enters and leaves the list. If someone wants to challenge the VOA’s decisions they have the right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Billing and collection of business rates

18. Before anyone or any business can be pursued for business rates they must have been sent a demand with their name on. If a taxpayer does not pay, a council must issue at least one reminder before issuing a summons for a liability order hearing at the Magistrates’ Court.
19. For a billing document to be effective it must be served on a person. A document may be served on a person by delivering it to them, leaving it at their proper address or sending it by post to their proper address. Proper address is taken to be the last known address. There is no need in law to use registered or recorded post.
20. Unless the contrary is proved, a document is deemed to have been served by post when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which states:

“…where an act authorises any document to be served by post, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effective by properly addressing, prepaying and posting a letter containing the document; and, unless the contrary is proved, is deemed to have been effected when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

Referral to enforcement agents

21. After a council has a liabily order, one of the options for collecting the debt is to refer the debt to an enforcement agent.
22. For council tax, our view is it is good practice for councils to write to debtors after the liability order has been made to warn them the warrant is being passed to an enforcement agent with a note of the costs that will become due. But for business rates we acknowledge a council may omit this step, as issuing a compliance notice binds the goods of the debtor. This is based on the historic legal position and ongoing custom and practice.
23. Regulations define the compliance stage as all activities from an enforcement agent’s receipt of a warrant to before the start of the enforcement stage – that is the first visit to the premises to attempt to take control of goods.
24. Before taking control of goods an enforcement agent must issue a notice of enforcement on the debtor seven clear days before the enforcement agents takes control of goods. What the notice should contain is set down in Regulations. This includes the time limit within which the debt must be paid. This notice can be posted or hand delivered.
25. Once an enforcement agent makes a first visit the compliance stage is over and the enforcement stage has begun.
26. The Enforcement Conduct Board is a non-statutory body which aims to provide guidance and advice to enforcement agents. It has issued non-statutory standards for the behaviour of agents, which we expect them to follow. This:

• says enforcement agents should, at all times, be respectful;
• sets out standards for enforcement agents in relation to engaging with third parties in the course of their work. The key principle in relation to third parties is to only disclose the minimum necessary information to carry out a visit.

Not holding recovery during an appeal period

27. There is nothing in law to say a council cannot pursue recovery pending an appeal about a business rates matter. But if a taxpayer has provided evidence they had appealed and the VOA (and, after, the Valuation Tribunal) was considering the matter, the Ombudsman’s view is a council should usually not recover pending the outcome of the appeal.

Fraud investigation

28. Councils have powers to investigate suspected fraudulent activity around some matters, including business rates.
29. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) sets out the legal framework for police powers. They also apply to organisations, such as councils, with enforcement powers. The PACE codes of practice provides guidance on how those powers should be used. Paragraph 11(A) of Pace Code C says any questioning of a person about their suspected involvement in a criminal offence must be carried out under caution. Before an enforcement body interviews someone, the enforcement body must give the person enough information to enable them to understand the nature of any such offence, and why they are suspected of committing it.
30. The paragraph goes on to say that, while the information must always be enough for the person to understand the nature of any offence, the enforcement agency does not need to disclose details that might prejudice the criminal investigation. So the decision about what needs to be disclosed rests with the investigating officer, who has sufficient knowledge of the case to make that decision.

Vexatious customers

31. The Council’s “Procedure for managing vexatious customers” says it has adopted this Ombudsman’s definition of unreasonable or unreasonably persistent citizens. Its procedure says:

“unreasonable and unreasonably persistent citizens are those citizens who, because of the nature or frequency of their contacts with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s consideration of their, or other people’s, complaints”.

32. The procedure sets out a list of behaviours it might consider unreasonable under its policy. It also sets out its procedure for imposing restrictions on a citizen’s contact:
• it should normally issue a written warning;
• if it went on to impose restrictions its written notification would explain:
1. why it took its decision;
2. what action it would be taking;
3. how long the limits would last and when they would be reviewed;
4. the review process of the policy;
5. what it meant in relation to their ability to contact the Council; and
6. the right to contact this Ombudsman;
• if it went on to impose restrictions, it would usually need to inform others within the Council of the restrictions;
• it would review the restrictions at set periods.

What happened

Background

33. Mr H owns a property that he lets part of to a company he has an interest in. Mr H lets another part of the property to Mr J who runs multiple businesses. The property also has residential accommodation which is let to tenants.
34. Mr H says that, in the period before the events covered by this complaint, the business property was exempt from business rates due to its rateable value.
35. The information below is a summary of relevant events, and does not include everything that happened during this period.

Billing and collection

36. The Council has records it sent Mr H’s company a bill for 2023/24 business rates. It also has records of sending a reminder and summons. The address is correct. The Council also has a record the Magistrates' Court granted a liability order (part of the set enforcement procedure) at the end of July 2023. Mr H says he did not receive any of this correspondence.

Referral to enforcement agents and actions afterwards

37. On 7 November 2023, the Council’s records say it attempted to contact Mr H by telephone. It could not contact him. It sent the debt to its enforcement agents.
38. On 14 November the Council’s recovery officer (Officer 1) emailed Mr H asking him to make contact about the debt on his business rates account. Mr H replied immediately to advise he would ask Mr J to respond, but noted that he thought the property was exempt (see paragraph 34).
39. Mr H remained in communication with Officer 1. In mid-November Officer 1 signposted Mr H to the VOA if he wanted to appeal.
40. On 30 November Officer 1 clarified that a fee included in the debt was for the cost of the Council obtaining a liability order from the Magistrates’ Court. Mr H says this is the first time he was aware the Court had granted a liability order.
41. Mr H says the next contact he had was on 11 December from his residential tenant. She advised him an enforcement agent had visited her and left Mr H a letter. Mr H contacted the Council and asked to complain.
42. In response to Mr H’s contact, Officer 1 responded to advise:
• the Council had properly served the correct documents to his business correspondence address. If Mr H wanted the Council to use an alternative address he should provide one;
• Mr H had provided a lease showing Mr J’s business as the tenant. But the lease had expired. Mr H advised the lease had been extended. But the Council needed a new lease to change liability away from Mr H’s business. On receipt, it would amend the account and withdraw further recovery action against Mr H’s business;
• the enforcement agents who worked on behalf of the Council would investigate Mr H’s complaint about their visit.
43. On 15 December the enforcement agents contacted Mr H to advise the Council had placed his account on hold until 9 January 2024, to allow him time to provide the lease. The response also advised it had viewed the video camera footage from its agent’s visit which showed he had spoken in a calm and polite manner and was not threatening in tone. The agent had only asked his tenant whether Mr H lived in the property and whether she could contact him.
44. On 21 December Mr H contacted Officer 1 asking for an update. Officer 1 responded advising the Council had closed his business rates account and made Mr J’s business liable from the start of the lease. But the liability order costs on Mr H’s account stood, as the Council had followed the correct recovery process.
45. Officer 1 contacted Mr J asking for payment of the business rates. The Council’s records show it had made Mr J responsible back to the start of the lease Mr H had supplied. Mr J replied to advise he was not responsible for the business rates. Mr J chased a response to this contact into 2024.
46. At the end of December 2023 Mr H asked the Council to destroy a lease he had sent it, as it was not valid. Mr H said Mr J was away but he would send an updated version on his return.
47. At the beginning of January 2024 the Council advised Mr H it did not need to see another lease, as the one he had provided had been signed by Mr J. And the Council had seen an email confirming a roll-over clause.
48. Around a week later, after Mr J’s return, Mr H contacted the Council to advise that Mr J was a sub-tenant. And the lease had a clause showing Mr H was liable for the business rates. He apologised for forgetting about this clause. He was happy to pay the rates due, but not the costs.
49. The Council emailed Mr H attaching documents and also confirming it had closed Mr H’s business rates account with a remaining balance of the court fees. It advised it had made Mr J’s company liable for the business rates as it had the lease and, so, occupation of the property.
50. Later in January, the Council waived the liability order costs on Mr H’s account.
51. Over the next few weeks Mr H sent several emails to the Council around the liability issue; one email attached a new lease.
52. In March the VOA finished its checking of the rateable value of Mr H’s property. It altered the valuation; in doing so making it exempt from business rates.
53. In mid-March Mr H wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive Officer, making a complaint. He says he did this as he had had no response to other contacts. Mr H complained the VOA’s decision had revised the rateable value of his property. And his company was liable for the rates, which he had told the Council. But despite this, it had issued a backdated bill to Mr J’s company.
54. The Council responded to Mr H’s complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. The 20 May second stage response advised it was in touch with Mr J and would consider the tenancy agreements supplied. It signposted Mr H to the Ombudsman. Mr H contacted the Council after this response. It signposted him again to the Ombudsman.
55. In June the Council responded to a complaint Mr H had made on behalf of Mr J. It noted the question of whether any business rates relief applied depended on the number of the businesses at the property and their ownership, which was why it was seeking information. But the Council accepted a delay in responding to Mr J’s complaint. It signposted him to the Ombudsman.

The fraud investigation

56. In mid-April 2024, a Council Investigation Officer (Officer 2) contacted Mr H to advise it had reason to investigate the business rates liability for Mr H’s property. She advised the Council believed he had committed an offence by providing false or misleading tenancy agreements to alter business rates liability. Officer 2 asked to interview Mr H under caution about this.
57. In response to further contact from Mr H, Officer 2 advised the proposed interview was voluntary. And Mr H had told the Council he would be out of the country until September, so the Council was happy to wait until Mr H’s return to make an arrangement. In response Mr H asked for disclosure of documents. In the following months he continued to contact the Council about the fraud issue. He advised he would not attend an interview and asked the Council to charge him or withdraw proceedings.
58. In mid-May Officer 2 responded to contact from Mr H’s solicitor. She advised:
• the reason the investigation could not be dealt with via correspondence was because it was not a straightforward case;
• the Council was happy to conduct the interview remotely;
• the documents the Council were relying on were ones Mr H had sent the Council.
59. Shortly after a different officer (Officer 3) emailed Mr H to advise:
• the Council had reason to believe he may have made false or misleading statements about the occupation of his business property;
• the statements appeared to have been made in order to reduce business rates liability for himself or a third party, including by providing false or fictitious tenancy agreements; so
• it was investigating if there had been offences under the Fraud Act 2006;
• at that point in the investigation, it was not under an obligation to disclose all documentation it held.
60. At the beginning of June Mr H complained about Officer 2 and delays in the Council advancing its investigation. Later in June the Council responded advising:
• it had been a challenge responding, due to the large amount of correspondence from Mr H;
• the delay was because Mr H was out of the country and so unable to attend an interview under caution. It had requested a digital interview, but was waiting for Mr H’s response.

Treating Mr H as a vexatious customer

61. In mid-June 2024 the Council emailed Mr H to advise that its view was his contacts were “complicating correspondence, and leading to a significant impact on the capacity of its officers”. It cited over 40 emails to eight different officers over an eleven week period.
62. The Council explained its procedure for managing vexatious customers in relation to Mr H’s contacts. It noted the frequency of contacts, the way in which Mr H was asking the Council to deal with his complaints and unjustified complaints against staff. It said it did not want to have to use its policy, so it was issuing Mr H with a warning.
63. In mid-July the Council imposed restrictions on Mr H’s contact with it, with a three-month review period. The notice said, since it had issued Mr H with a warning, his behaviour had not changed. He was:
• adopting a 'scatter gun' approach: pursuing parallel complaints on the same issue with various members of staff, councillors and/or organisations;
• refusing to accept decisions; repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence;
• continuing to challenge complaint responses.
64. The Council advised Mr H:

• to direct all his correspondence to a named officer;
• to limit his correspondence to once a week;
• it would not respond to any correspondence about matters already considered;
• that it would not consider further some of Mr H’s complaints;
• it would inform all its departments of its decision;
• all communication about the fraud investigation should be through Mr H’s solicitor.

65. Mr H complained to the Ombudsman in September 2024.
66. At the end of October the Council continued its restrictions on Mr H’s contacts. Its view was his behaviour had not changed. It gave examples.

Events after Mr H’s complaint to the Ombudsman

67. In December 2024, the Council rejected new complaints Mr H had made and directed him to the Ombudsman.
68. After further contacts from Mr H, in March 2025, the Council provided further detailed responses from its Monitoring Officer, who advised:

Fraud investigations

• the investigation started after Mr H provided different tenancy agreements for the same period. Between Mr H sending the two agreements, it had billed Mr J for business rates;
• the person liable for the business rates was the occupier. This was set out in statute and was not affected by any agreement between tenant and landlord;
• the Monitoring Officer had asked the Council’s Investigations Team to expedite its assessment and make any referral to its legal services.

Vexatious complaint policy

• Mr H had continued to send a significant amount of correspondence. These often repeated the same matters. The arrangement was kept under review and would be removed if it was no longer needed;
• it had not accepted a new complaint Mr H had made. It explained why;
• it needed further clarification about another complaint Mr H wanted to make.

69. In May 2025 the Information Commissioner upheld a complaint Mr H had made to it. The Commissioner found the Council had delayed responding to Mr H’s Freedom of Information request which was a question about how the Council determined to whom business rates liability applied.
70. In response to my draft decision the Council provided the following information about its fraud investigation.
• It accepted there was a delay in its investigation, but not that it was unreasonably put on hold.
• It paused its investigation while Mr H was out of the country.
• During this period, it had other urgent and time-sensitive cases that needed immediate attention.
• It had resumed Mr H’s case at the earliest available opportunity.
• It had written to Mr H twice in January 2025, offering the opportunity to attend an interview. Mr H had refused.
• In March 2025 it had finalised the case and passed it to its legal tea for consideration of prosecution.
71. In response to my draft decision Mr H provided many comments. I have incorporated some of these comments into this revised draft decision.
72. Mr H also advised of a Council delay reviewing its restrictions on his contacts. This action is outside the time period this investigation has considered.
73. At the time of this statement, the Council had not contacted Mr H about the outcome of its fraud investigation, following forwarding the case to its legal team in March.

Analysis

Billing

74. Mr H says he did not receive any notification about the billing and enforcement of the business rates. The evidence shows the Council billed and enforced its debts correctly and sent them to the correct address. That is all it needs to show. The law does not expect it to send correspondence by recorded delivery, or to confirm receipt. While I do not doubt that Mr H did not receive the bills, I cannot say that was due to fault by the Council. So I cannot uphold Mr H’s complaint about this issue.

Information

75. Mr H says the first he was aware the Magistrates’ Court had granted the Council a liability order for his debt was at the end of November. This was a few weeks after the Council first tried to contact him about the debt. But the real reason Mr H was not aware of the liability order was because of the problems with his receipt of the Council’s enforcement documents for the debt. I have not upheld Mr H’s complaint about this issue, as I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council correctly served the documents. So I cannot uphold this part of the complaint. In any case, Mr H was aware of the status of the debt before the enforcement action progressed, so limiting the injustice to him.
76. Officer 1 later told Mr H he needed to provide a new lease, as the one he had provided had expired. Shortly after, the Council cancelled the debt from Mr H’s company’s business rates account. It made Mr J’s company liable for the rates. Officer 1 later advised Mr H he no longer needed a new lease as he had found a roll-over clause in the old lease. The question of whether Mr H or Mr J was liable is not a question for the Ombudsman.
77. But I do find fault that Officer 1 did not earlier contact Mr H (and/or Mr J) to explain the reasons for the change in the Council’s decision about who was liable. However the injustice is limited to some confusion, for a short period of time, given Officer 1 did later provide the information.

Mr J

78. The Council has accepted a delay in responding to contact from Mr J. I uphold this part of the complaint that Mr H made on Mr J’s behalf.

Enforcement agents contacted the residential tenant

79. The enforcement agents were allowed to visit the premises to seek information. On the balance of probabilities, It is likely this visit was to serve Mr H a notice of enforcement (see paragraph 24). On the information available, the enforcement agents complied with the code of practice (paragraph 26). The agent only gave Mr H’s tenant general information and a (sealed) letter. And the Council has sent me a response from the enforcement agents to Mr H, shortly after his complaint, responding to it. So I cannot uphold this part of the complaint.

Holding action

80. In December 2023 the Council instructed its enforcement agents to hold action until January 2024. However, when Mr H later asked Officer 1 about holding enforcement action while he appealed, Officer 1 refused. It would have been better if Officer 1 had advised Mr H that the Council would hold recovery once Mr H sent it information the VOA had accepted his appeal request. But injustice to Mr H is limited, as:
• Mr H did not provide the Council with information he had appealed (see paragraph 27); and
• in fact neither the Council or its enforcement agents took any further enforcement action against Mr H or his company.

Vexatious customer action and single point of contact responses

81. The Council has outlined the contacts that led it to take the view Mr H’s correspondence was unreasonable. It has provided him with explanations. And contrary to Mr H’s recollection it did issue him a warning (see paragraphs 61 and 62). I cannot question the merits of the Council’s actions. It has provided cogent reasons why it was using its policy and I see no fault when compared to that policy.
82. In relation to the single point of contact not responding, the Council’s restrictions say it will not respond to correspondence that repeats matters already considered. That is a measure it was entitled to make, so I cannot criticise it. And a review of the March 2025 letter shows the Council has accepted some new complaints from Mr H, while rejecting others.

The fraud investigation

83. The merits of the Council’s reasons for starting a fraud investigation are not for the Ombudsman.
84. But I have considered whether the Council gave Mr H enough explanation of its reasons for the investigation. My view is Officer 3’s email to Mr H (see paragraph 59) did provide enough detail to meet the requirements of the PACE Code, albeit not as much as Mr H would have liked. So I cannot uphold this part of the complaint, noting the Code’s advice says it was for the investigating officer to make a decision about disclosure.
85. But I do find fault with delay in the Council’s investigation. I accept its reasons for holding action at first after Mr H told it he was out of the country. But after this Mr H remained in contact asking it to proceed. The Council says it had other more urgent cases at the time. And it did not advance its investigation until March 2025. I appreciate the Council wanted to interview Mr H and the PACE Code says any interview needed to be under caution. But Mr H refused. I would have expected it to have then decided what it wanted to do earlier. Its explanation of competing priorities means I find fault by way of service failure. But Mr H says he has still not heard from the Council, so the delay is ongoing.

Back to top

Recommended Action

86. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council:
• make Mr H a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the avoidable distress and frustration the faults I have identified will have caused him;
• provide Mr H with an update on when he can expect to hear from the Council about the outcome of its fraud investigation;
• apologise to Mr H for the faults I have identified which are:
1. the delay in the fraud investigation;
2. the delay in advising Mr H about the Council’s change of view regarding the tenancy agreement;
3. not advising Mr H it would hold enforcement action pending confirmation he had appealed;
4. not responding to contacts from Mr J.
87. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
88. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendaitons. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

89. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman