Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s business rates account, including its consideration of his hardship relief application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we are unlikely to achieve a better outcome for the complainant than the action already proposed by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his business rates account and its consideration of his hardship relief application. In particular, Mr X says the Council did not follow its own process for:
• the notification of a summons, or
• the deliberation of his hardship relief application, and his subsequent appeal.
2. Mr X says the Council deliberately delayed responding to and progressing the matter, which means it has taken years to resolve, and resulted in the appointment of debt collectors, despite the fact his company is no longer trading.
3. Mr X also says the Council has failed to provide a copy of its complaint procedure, even though he has requested it on numerous occasions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposed to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

5. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. And 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council.
• the Council’s ‘hardship relief policies’ which applied at the time the decisions on his hardship relief application were made.
• the business rates recovery process detailed on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. It is clearly very unfortunate that Mr X may not have received the reminder and summons issued by post in July and August 2022, respectively, or the April 2023 appeal decision on his hardship relief application.
9. But I have seen no evidence that this was due to any fault by the Council. For example, we cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering these letters. Overall, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the recovery process followed by the Council.
10. I also appreciate Mr X is very unhappy with the Council’s decisions not to grant him any hardship relief. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. The Council’s April 2023 appeal decision letter, and it’s review email of 31 January 2025, explain the reasons for refusing Mr X’s application for hardship relief. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it reached its decisions, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
12. And in response to our enquiries, the Council has explained that after issuing a revised business rates bill in October 2023 (when Mr X advised his tenancy had ended), recovery of the outstanding debt was put on hold until March 2024 to allow Mr X time to appeal the rateable value to the Valuation Office. A bill was then issued in October 2024 for the overdue balance, with the case then sent to the enforcement agent in late-November 2024. In doing so, the Council was entitled to rely on the liability order obtained in September 2022. Again, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the recovery process followed by the Council here, so we will not investigate it.
13. I am also mindful that the Council offered to recall the case from the enforcement agents and remove the costs added, provided that Mr X agrees to a repayment arrangement. This was in recognition of Mr X not receiving the April 2023 appeal decision letter, and subsequently being wrongly told the appeal decision was still pending, when it had already been determined. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a better outcome for Mr X.
14. And as we have decided not to investigate the substantive issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s complaint procedure in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we are unlikely to achieve a better outcome than the action already proposed by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman