Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about business rates. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely that we will find fault with the remaining matters complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made multiple errors calculating his business rates. He also complains that its complaint review was not evidence based and did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Mr X says this has caused significant distress, financial pressure and business disruption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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)

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 complained that the Council wrongly took action to enforce business rate arears. He complained the Council had failed to take into account his eligibility for Empty Property Exemption and Small Business Rate relief.
9. Mr X also disputed charges made for Enforcement Agent visits. He said the visits did not occur.
10. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Enforcement action was taken more than a year ago. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this matter now. Mr X knew about the enforcement action at the time and could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
11. Mr X later complained to the Council that Retail, Hospitality and Leisure relief (RHLR) should have been applied. The Council explained that unoccupied properties are not eligible for RHLR and asked Mr X to provide evidence that he met the criteria.
12. The Council has provided evidence of its decision making and I am satisfied it has properly considered this application based on information available to it at the time. I am also satisfied that it has adequately explained its decision not to apply the relief.
13. I understand that Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the application, however, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to make decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council has properly considered the application, it is unlikely that we will find fault.
14. Mr X has also complained the Council’s complaint review was not evidence based and did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we will find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman