Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement action for business rates. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his business rates, including using enforcement agents (EA). He says this caused stress, loss of time and financial pressure.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council got a court order for unpaid business rates and passed the debt to its EA. The EA wrote to Mr X then, after not receiving payment, visited Mr X’s business nearly two weeks later. The visit resulted in the EA adding £235 to the business rates debt. That is the standard fee set by the government for an EA visit such as this.
7. Mr X then told the Council he had been unaware he owed the rates and was abroad. The Council then put enforcement action on hold. Mr X paid the rates but not the £235. Mr X is aggrieved the Council says he should still pay the £235 and that the EA is threatening further enforcement action about that charge.
8. Mr X argued the EA added the £235 fee pre-emptively and before he had had enough opportunity to pay the rates. However, before the matter got to the EA, the Council had sought payment unsuccessfully. The EA had sent Mr X a written notice over a week before the visit. The rates debt remained unpaid. At that stage, Mr X had not yet contacted the Council to arrange payment; nor did the Council or the EA yet know Mr X was out of the country and had been unaware of the debt. In the circumstances, there was no fault in the EA taking enforcement action to the next stage and visiting the business. It follows there was also no fault in adding the £235 fee then.
9. Mr X argues the Council should have used its discretion to remove the £235 after he paid the business rates. Just because someone pays a debt after enforcement action has started, it does not automatically follow they should not pay the cost of that enforcement action. The Council recognised it had discretion to waive the fee. It said it would only do so in exceptional circumstances. It did not consider Mr X’s circumstances were exceptional. The evidence suggests the Council reached that decision properly, having considered the events and Mr X’s arguments. So, I cannot criticise that decision even though Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Mr X is unhappy the EA continued to demand the £235 after Mr X had paid the business rates. He argues the Council had said enforcement action would stop if he paid the business rates debt. Even if the Council said that, which might have affected Mr X’s expectations, it does not necessarily mean the Council should waive the EA fee. As explained above, there was no fault in the Council’s substantive decision-making about that. So, it would be disproportionate for me to investigate the Council’s communications about the enforcement action.
11. Mr X is also unhappy the Council did not tell the EA to hold enforcement action about the £235 while Mr X was querying the fee, or while the Council was dealing with his subject access request or while he was using the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council had no obligation to do that. The Council was also entitled to have regard to avoiding creating incentives for people to make other requests or complaints to delay being pursued for a debt, though I do not suggest that was Mr X’s motivation. Investigation would be unlikely to find fault on this point.
12. Mr X asked the EA to communicate with him in writing about the £235 rather than visiting his business again or threatening to visit. I understand why Mr X does not want EA visits to his business. However, it is not fault to keep that option open after a matter has reached the enforcement stage at which EA visits are allowed.
13. I understand Mr X considers the Council’s and its EA’s position unfair and disproportionate. However, investigation is unlikely to find evidence of any fault but for which the situation would have been likely to be significantly different.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman