Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Rates Relief Scheme to a company’s business rates. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to apply a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Rates Relief Scheme to a company’s business rates. She said the business provides retail and office functions and therefore meets the criteria.
2. She said the rise in business rates means the business may have to close. She wants the Council to apply the Relief Scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Government has produced guidance for Local Authorities on the implementation of the Relief Scheme. Mrs X applied, but the Council refused as it said her application did not meet the criteria.
8. Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision. The Council completed an inspection of the business premises. It then reviewed Mrs X’s application along with the inspection report and supporting evidence at a taxation panel. The panel decided it would not apply the Relief Scheme because there was no evidence that the premises were being wholly or mainly used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public as a shop.
9. Mrs X said she did not agree with the Council’s decision and it completed a further inspection. The Council upheld its original decision not to apply tax relief based on a second inspection and further evidence provided by Mrs X.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council made its decision after reviewing evidence provided by Mrs X and the premises inspection report. When Mrs X said she disagreed with the appeal outcome it carried out a further inspection. The Council set out its reasons for not applying the Relief Scheme to Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s application and appeal to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman