Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his business rates account. Part of his complaint is out of our jurisdiction, and there isn’t enough evidence of fault by the Council in the other part of his complaint. There is also not enough evidence of significant personal injustice to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to properly register and manage his business rates account despite his repeated attempts. Mr X says that he received contradictory and misleading advice from the Council about liability and eligibility for relief.
• That he was advised by the Council not to attend the Summons Hearing and feels that decisions were made in his absence.
• The Council failed to follow the agreed payment plan by taking higher payments than agreed.
• It did not respond properly to his Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Mr X says that it has taken significant time and effort to try to resolve this and has caused him stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. 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.
• There is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly register and manage his business rates account between 2020 and 2023 despite his repeated attempts. This part of the complaint is late, and I can see no good reason why Mr X did not bring this complaint to us sooner, and so we will not investigate this further. Even if we were to look into this, there is unlikely to be enough injustice to justify investigation. Because Mr X knew he was liable for the business rates, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to make provision for those costs until the situation was resolved.
10. Mr X then says that once he had registered his account, he received misleading and conflicting information from the Council about relief he was entitled to. The Council explained that Mr X wasn’t entitled to ‘Retail, Hospitality and Leisure relief’, and explained the reasons. There is not enough evidence the Council provided conflicting information about his entitlement. Even if earlier information was unclear, the Council later explained why Mr X did not qualify for the relief. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council communicated its decision to justify investigating this part of his complaint.
11. Mr X complained the Council advised him not to attend the summons hearing and that decisions were made in his absence. However, liability for business rates is determined by the magistrates’ court, and Mr X had the opportunity to attend and present his case. Mr X was aware of the court hearing, even if he didn’t attend. This makes this part of the complaint out of our jurisdiction as we are unable to investigate what happens in court.
12. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow an agreed payment plan by taking higher payments than expected. The Council explained the repayment plan was applied as agreed, but payments were also collected to cover charges for the current financial year. As a result, the total amount taken was higher than the repayment plan amount alone. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice in the way the Council collected these payments, as Mr X was responsible for paying the current years business rates and arranging to pay the arrears.
13. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond properly to his Subject Access Request (SAR). The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. If Mr X would like to complain about the Council’s handling of his data, it would be reasonable for him to raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, part of his complaint is out of our jurisdiction, and there isn’t enough evidence of fault by the Council in the remaining issues. Nor is there enough evidence of significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman