Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s business rates. This is mainly because investigation would be unlikely to find fault on the central point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council charged business rates his business did not owe and, when Mr X did not pay, the Council sent enforcement agents. He states this caused financial loss to the business and damaged his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I looked at online information about the rating list assessments for the relevant properties.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council took court action and got a liability order for the money it said Mr X’s business owed. The restriction in paragraph 3 means we cannot investigate the Council’s decision to start court action, or what happened during court action.
10. Matters related to the complaint date back several years. Mr X complained to us in June 2025, so the restriction in paragraph 5 applies to any complaint about events before June 2024. I see no good reason Mr X’s business could not have complained sooner about such events, so I shall not investigate late parts of the complaint.
11. In the 12 months before Mr X’s complaint to us, the Council passed the matter to enforcement agents, who attended Mr X’s business in 2025 and said they would remove a vehicle. Mr X then paid the amount demanded. The complaint about this is not late.
12. At the heart of this complaint is Mr X’s view the business rates bill was wrong because it charged him for rates due on a property that Mr X says had already been divided into two units, only one of which his business was liable for. The Council says the division into two units was only recorded as happening later, so it billed Mr X’s business for rates on the whole premises for the period before the division, and for one unit after the division.
13. The rating list gives details of properties for business rates purposes. It sets out whether somewhere is one property or more than one property for rating purposes. The Council must bill in accordance with what the rating list says. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, compiles and makes changes to the rating list. The VOA is a central government body, independent of the Council.
14. The rating list entries support what the Council says. The Council had to bill in accordance with the rating list. So, if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council billing in line with what the rating list said and taking recovery action when Mr X did not pay in full. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the position, but that is a matter between him and the VOA. The Council does not control the VOA, and the Ombudsman cannot investigate the VOA.
15. The alleged effect on Mr X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean we should investigate instead. Liability for personal injury is not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely the Council was at fault for billing Mr X and taking recovery action. We cannot consider the court action the Council took. Mr X’s business could reasonably have complained to us sooner about earlier matters. Mr X could reasonably take court action if he wants a ruling on whether the Council is responsible for damage to his health.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman