Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Business Rates’ liability because Mr and Mrs Y could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. It would also be reasonable for them to challenge the matter in the magistrates’ court. The complaint is also late.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s handling of their business rates’ account between 2017 and 2023. They say they are not liable for the costs the Council is pursuing.
2. Mr and Mrs Y say the Council’s delays and errors caused them to miss out on Covid-19 business support which was available during this time.
3. They say they have suffered significant financial and emotional harm because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
6. 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))
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs Y and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council sent Mr and Mrs Y a business rate bill. Mr and Mrs Y disputed their liability for this and challenged this with the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).
11. The VOA returned a “No Action” decision. If Mr and Mrs Y disagreed with this, they should have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. It was reasonable to expect them to have done this and so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
12. Mr and Mrs Y have raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with their business rate account. They say that the Council did not notify the VOA about their property in a timely manner and the Council confused their business with another similar in name. These issues were ongoing between 2017 and 2023, and there is no good reason as to why Mr and Mrs Y did not complain to us sooner.
13. The more time passes between the events and a complaint, the more unlikely it is we can investigate them effectively, gather reliable evidence and reach a sound decision. In older cases we also may not be able to achieve a meaningful remedy because too many circumstances have changed. We are often unable to be able to show why events occurred or understand who was responsible.
14. As the complaint is about something that happened more than 12 months ago, and it is reasonable to expect Mr and Mrs Y to have come to us sooner, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint because it is late.
15. In 2023, the Council says it exercised discretion to allow Mr and Mrs Y to pay the owed bill via instalments. Since then, the Council has issued a summons to Mr and Mrs Y for non-payment. It had a right to do this.
16. If Mr and Mrs Y do not agree they are liable for the debt or if they disagree with the amount requested by the Council, they can attend the court hearing to argue their case, and it is reasonable to expect them to do this as only the magistrates’ court can determine liability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman