Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued his company for business rates after it had assigned the lease of the premises to another business. He said the Council sent correspondence to the wrong address, so the company did not know about the outstanding balance until enforcement agents became involved. We have not found fault in the Council’s administrative handling of the address it used for the bill, reminder and summons. The evidence shows the Council sent those notices to the correspondence address it had been given for the account.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly pursued his company for an outstanding business rates debt after it had assigned the lease of its office premises to another company. He says the company paid all sums due when the lease was transferred and was unaware of any further arrears until contacted by enforcement agents. He says the Council sent correspondence to addresses where the company was no longer based, so it did not receive the bill, reminder and summons before recovery action was taken. Mr X says this caused distress and led to avoidable enforcement action and additional costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the Council’s administrative handling of the account, including the addresses it used for correspondence and recovery after the complainant’s company assigned the lease of the premises to another business.
5. I have not investigated whether the complainant’s company was legally liable for the business rates charged, or whether the amount the Council sought to recover was correct. The Council sought a liability order through the Magistrates’ Court, and liability for the debt was a matter the complainant could dispute in that forum. I have therefore considered only whether there was fault in the Council’s administration, and whether any such fault caused the complainant injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Business rates liability and recovery

8. Business rates are charged on most non-domestic properties. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides that a person is liable for non-domestic rates if their name is shown in the local rating list as the ratepayer for the relevant property and period.
9. The collection and enforcement of business rates is governed by the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989. These regulations provide for councils to issue demand notices and reminders, and to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a summons and liability order where rates remain unpaid.
10. If a liability order is made, the council may take further recovery action.

Ombudsman guidance

11. Where a council has obtained a liability order and the complainant says they were not present at the hearing, we do not usually investigate the underlying liability if the complainant knew about the hearing and could have attended to dispute the debt. But we may consider complaints about the Council’s administrative actions leading up to the hearing. For example, if the Council sent the summons to an address where it knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the complainant was not receiving post, that would be fault. In those circumstances, a suitable remedy may be for the Council to take steps to rescind the liability order and reissue the summons so the complainant has the opportunity to put their case to the court.

Back to top

What happened

12. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
13. Mr X was a director of Business A. Business A occupied commercial premises at Property A. In spring 2023, an application for small business rate relief was submitted on behalf of Business A. The application gave Address B as the correspondence address and said Accountancy Firm 1 were previous accountants, with authority enclosed for Accountancy Firm 2.
14. The Council later said it had originally issued correspondence to Accountancy Firm 1 at Address C, but from summer 2023 it updated its records to send correspondence to Accountancy Firm 2 at Address B, in line with the relief application.
15. In late 2023 and early 2024, legal documents were prepared and signed to assign the lease of Property A from Business A to Business B. The audit trail for the document shows signatures were completed in early 2024.
16. In early 2024, Business A sent the Council the lease reassignment documents. In spring 2024, the Council told Mr X it had amended liability to Business B in line with the lease reassignment. In the same correspondence, the Council said it had updated the correspondence address from Accountancy Firm 1 to Accountancy Firm 2 from summer 2023.
17. In mid-2024, the Council issued a business rates demand notice for Property A. It addressed the notice to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B. The notice related to a balance of £125.83 for the period from the start of the 2023/24 financial year to mid-January 2024.
18. In early autumn 2024, the Council issued a reminder notice for the same amount. It addressed this notice to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B.
19. In mid-autumn 2024, the Council issued a summons for non-payment of business rates. It addressed the summons to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B. The summons referred to the rated property as Property A and gave a hearing date in late 2024.
20. The Council also produced online versions of the bill, reminder and summons. Those online versions displayed Business A together with the address of Property A.
21. The Council later recorded that a liability order was granted in late 2024. It then referred the debt for enforcement action. The Council said an enforcement agent compliance fee and later an enforcement stage fee were added. In early 2025, a payment of £180.83 was made directly to the Council, leaving £27.50 outstanding on the business rates account, with enforcement agent fees remaining separately payable.
22. In 2025, Mr X complained to the Council. He said Business A had not received earlier correspondence about the debt, that it had left Property A, and that he only became aware of the issue when contacted by enforcement agents. The Council replied that the balance was correct and said the bill, reminder and summons had been issued to the last known address on its records.

Back to top

Analysis

23. This case turns on whether the Council used the correct address when it issued the bill, reminder and summons. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, I have not considered the underlying liability for the debt. I have considered only whether there was fault in the Council’s administrative actions.

Address used for the bill, reminder and summons

24. I have seen a small business rate relief application submitted on behalf of Business A in spring 2023. That application gave Address B as the correspondence address. It also said Accountancy Firm 1 were previous accountants and authority was enclosed for Accountancy Firm 2.
25. I have also seen the Council’s correspondence from spring 2024. In that correspondence, the Council said it had originally issued correspondence to Accountancy Firm 1 at Address C, but from summer 2023 it updated its records to send correspondence to Accountancy Firm 2 at Address B, in line with the relief application.
26. The formal business rates demand notice issued in mid-2024 was addressed to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B. The reminder notice issued in early autumn 2024 was sent to the same address. The summons issued in mid-autumn 2024 was also addressed to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B.
27. Mr X says Business A had left Property A and did not receive the correspondence. I have considered that carefully. But the key question for me is not whether Business A actually received the notices. It is whether the Council used an address it knew, or ought reasonably to have known, was not the correct correspondence address. On the evidence I have seen, Address B was the correspondence address the Council had been given for this account.
28. I have not seen evidence Business A later told the Council to stop using Address B before the bill, reminder and summons were issued. In those circumstances, I do not find fault in the Council using Address B for the bill, reminder and summons.

The lease reassignment of Property A

29. I have also considered Mr X’s point that Business A had left Property A before the Council took recovery action.
30. The lease documents show Business A assigned the lease of Property A to Business B in early 2024. The Council’s correspondence from spring 2024 also shows it was aware of the lease reassignment and said it had amended liability to Business B in line with that information.
31. I am satisfied Property A appeared on later documents because it was the rated property to which the account related. The formal bill, reminder and summons were not addressed to Property A. They were addressed to Business A using Accountancy Firm 2’s address at Address B. Although the online versions of the documents displayed Property A, the formal versions show the Council used Address B for correspondence.
32. So, while the lease reassignment explains why Mr X says Business A was no longer receiving post at Property A, I do not find that this makes the Council’s issue of the bill, reminder or summons faulty. On the evidence I have seen, the Council did not use Property A as the correspondence address for those formal notices.
33. I have therefore not found fault in the Council’s administrative handling of the address it used for the bill, reminder and summons. To the extent Mr X continues to dispute liability for the business rates debt itself, that was a matter for the court.

Back to top

Decision

34. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault in the way the Council issued the bill, reminder and summons on this account. The evidence shows it sent those notices to the correspondence address it had been given for the account.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman