Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s business rates account. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his business rates account, particularly in relation to his entitlement to rate relief, when it became aware that his name was on another business rates account at a different Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate it has been worrying and stressful for Mr X, trying to resolve this matter whilst recovery action had commenced.
5. But our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. 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.
6. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s business rates account to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Lewisham Council is not responsible for the administration of business rates accounts at the other Council, or for any errors made by Mr X’s son in the information he provided to the other council.
• There was no requirement for Lewisham Council to put Mr X’s account on hold whilst the matter was being resolved, and he was made aware of this.
• Lewisham Council has acted on the information available to it at the time, and amended the account when new information has been presented.
• Mr X failed to respond to the Council’s correspondence/requests for information on two occasions.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by Lewisham Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman