Summary: Mr X complains he is not liable for the debt on a business rates account. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to have expected Mr X to have attended Court to dispute the Liability Order. The Court would have been better placed to make this decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made unauthorised transfers between different related business accounts. He says the Council’s actions resulted in an artificial shortfall on one account. The Council obtained a Liability Order at Court and referred the account for enforcement action.
2. Mr X complains the enforcement action arose from the Council’s misallocation of funds and poor record-keeping.
3. Mr X says he had to pay enforcement and court fees to prevent further action. He says this caused stress and anxiety.
4. Mr X wants a refund, compensation and an apology from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has multiple business rates accounts.
9. Mr X complains that the Council misallocated funds to other accounts when one of the business rates accounts was closed.
10. Mr X also complains that he did not ask the Council to transfer monies out of one business rates account and into another in May. This transfer caused a shortfall in this account. The Council later went to court to get a Liability Order to recover the monies owed on this account. Mr X says the Council did not provide proof that he requested the transfer.
11. I will not investigate this complaint. Mr X considers he is not liable for the debt as he claims he had already paid and the Council wrongly transferred money between accounts which caused the arrears. Mr X paid the arrears and court fees to stop the enforcement action. But it was open to Mr X to have contested the bill in Court at the Liability Order hearing. The Court would have been better placed to decide if Mr X was liable for the debt. So, it is reasonable to consider Mr X could have disputed his liability for the debt in Court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. Mr X complains he is not liable for the debt on a business rates account. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to have expected Mr X to have attended Court to dispute the Liability Order. The Court would have been better placed to make this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman