Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a limited company that the Council has delayed determining the liability of a property for business rates, meaning his company will suffer economic loss. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with business rates for a property because it delayed in making his company responsible for Business rates at an address from 2021.
2. Mr X says the delay meant that he was unable to challenge the decision through the valuation office before 2023.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X 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

Law, guidance and policies

7. The magistrates’ court decides how much rates a business must pay. A council can ask the court for a liability order. The person it thinks must pay can make their case to the court.

What happened?

8. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
9. Mr X’s company owned a commercial property which was split over two floors. Each of the two floors has a separate rateable value for business rates. The Ground floor I shall call property A and the first floor property B. Mr X’s complaint relates to property A.
10. Mr X’s company and the Council have been in communication about the liability for business rates at each of the properties since at least 2020.
11. In June 2021, Mr X’s company told the Council that it was unhappy about the way the business rates were split. The Council directed it to appeal to the Valuation Office.
12. In September 2021 the Council informed Mr X’s company there were significant business rates owed and said it had not received any evidence of signed commercial lease for property A.
13. Mr X’s company responded to the request for information in March 2023, providing a lease that it said was for both property A and property B.
14. In August 2023 the Council provided a full statement of accounts in relation to outstanding liability.
15. There was continuing dialog between the Council and Mr X’s company. In December 2024 the Council asked Mr X’s company for further information about leases and tenants. Mr X’s company provided a copy of a lease amendment to the Council.
16. The Council concluded that Mr X’s company should ben held liable for business rates from 2017.

Analysis

17. Mr X is no longer a director of the company on behalf of which he has complained.
18. I have not investigated any matter relating to the first floor, property B, as this has been subject to a liability order and court action. The Court is best placed to determine any issues relating to this.
19. It is clear that Mr X knew his company owned the building and could be liable, and that the Valuation Office Agency had rated the premises and that this could lead to liability for paying rates.
20. The Council, in determining business rate liability, has had to consider a range of lease evidence from various parties. It made necessary enquiries, in the face of conflicting evidence, in order to determine liability.
21. Mr X, and his company:
• Delayed providing evidence to the Council about leases at property A for 18 months. This delay is not fault by the Council.
• Provided information about a lease in February 2024 to the Council, which generated a refund of over £8,000. The Council then says this lease information was discredited and liability reinstated for the owners.
• Did not provide further relevant evidence to the Council about a lease amendment until December 2024. I cannot see any reason why this information could not have been provided to the Council earlier.
22. On the balance of probabilities, if Mr X or his company had provided sufficient information in 2021 then the Council would have been able to make a determination of liability sooner. The delay to the determination of liability for business rates for property A was therefore as a result of Mr X and his company, not the Council.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman