Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about business rates because it has been considered by a court and there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly billed her for business rates. She says she believed she had a three-month exemption period but was not made aware of the previous landlord using it. She says the Council provided her with letters containing wrong dates which added to the confusion. Miss X says these issues have affected her mental health making her anxious when having to wait for a long-time for an outcome. Miss X wants the Council to improve how it provides information to ensure consistency over the phone and via written communications.

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 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))
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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. A court summons was sent to Miss X for outstanding business rates. The magistrates’ court decides how much rates someone should pay. A council can ask the court for a liability order. The person it thinks must pay can make their case to the court. Miss X did not attend the hearing. If Miss X did not believe she was liable for the rates, it would have been reasonable for her to present her case to the court. The court found Miss X was liable. I cannot question the decisions of a court and so cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
8. Miss X says the Council told her over the phone she was entitled to a three-month business rates exemption while she was seeking a tenant. She complained the Council failed to apply the three-month exemption. The Council explained to Miss X the previous landlord had already used that exemption, and it could not apply it again on the same property. Miss X says she should be entitled to her own empty property allowance. The Council has applied the correct guidance, therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. Miss X complained the Council delayed responding to her emails and customer service call waiting times were too long. Although Miss X experienced these delays, any injustice she suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it has been considered by a court and there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman