Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a backdated business rates bill. The court is better placed to decide whether the backdated demand is valid.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council sent her a backdated business rates bill for Unit One and Unit Two, which she has occupied as a single combined premises since 2019. She says she believed the property formed one unit for business rates purposes and if the Council is backdating liability, it should also backdate any reliefs she would have been eligible for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2019 Miss X rented two connected business units, Unit One and Unit Two. Miss X operated her business from both units and says she thought it was one unit for business rates purposes. In 2024 Miss X’s landlord gave her bills for both units. Miss X contacted the Council to tell it her business was occupying the property.
6. In 2025 the Council issued backdated bills for Unit One and Unit Two. Miss X says these late demands place her business under significant strain. She believes the Council should cancel or reduce the backdated charges and apply any reliefs she would have been entitled to if she had been recorded as the rate payer at the time.
7. The Council says it did not know Miss X was occupying Unit Two until 2024. It explained it sent all earlier correspondence to the previous ratepayer, and none was returned, so it had no reason to update its records. Miss X had not advised the Council she occupied both units before 2024.
8. The Council applied to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to merge the two units in 2025. The VOA could merge the units from April 2023. Because the VOA can backdate the merger to before the Council’s delay, the delay will not result in a significant injustice.
9. The Council accepts it held information from a 2020 COVID‑19 business grant application, showing Miss X was occupying Unit One. It recalculated the liability for Unit One and offered to write off the backdated charges Miss X would not have owed if she had been recorded as the rate payer for unit One in 2020.
10. The Council explained it cannot backdate Retail, Hospitality and Leisure (RHL) Relief before April 2023 because legislation does not permit this. COVID‑19 relief schemes have also closed and cannot be awarded retrospectively. Small Business Rates Relief does not apply because Miss X occupies more than one unit and even if the units were merged, the combined value would be too high.
11. I have not seen evidence to suggest the Council was aware Miss X’s was running her business from both units prior to 2024. Decisions about the validity of backdated business rates bills are highly technical matters. A court is better placed to decide whether the Council was entitled to issue backdated demands in this case.
12. I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to backdate relief for Unit Two. The Council explained the relief eligibility, and I have not seen fault in how it applied its processes. I cannot separate any argument that relief should be backdated because the bill was issued late from the question of whether the backdated bill is valid, which is a matter the Court is better placed to determine.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Court is better placed to consider this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman