Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s business rates account. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his business rates account and referral to its enforcement agents. Mr X said the Council failed in its communication with him and in carrying out due process.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions were disproportionate and excessive, causing stress, unnecessary costs and a risk to his business. Mr X wants the Council to offer a service supporting small businesses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

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 issued Mr X a business rates bill in March 2025. It set out the payments due between April 2025 and January 2026. Mr X paid for the first four months.
7. When the Council received no further payments, it issued a final notice in October 2025 with the full outstanding balance due immediately. Mr X made a further payment in October 2025, but it was not the full amount.
8. In November 2025, the Council followed its recovery process and issued Mr X with a summons.
9. Mr X contacted the Council in July 2025 as roadworks were affecting his business and he was aware he may qualify for rate relief. He advised Council staff that he had applied to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) for rate relief to be considered.
10. Mr X says that neither the Council nor the organisation acting on its behalf to manage business rates gave him the information and advice he needed. He believes that summons and court action could have been avoided. Mr X does not dispute that he is liable to pay business rates.
11. The Council responded to Mr X following its investigation and it said it was entitled to take recovery action. It explained that action had to be applied consistently to all ratepayers.
12. The Council recognised that its communications with Mr X could have been clearer in responding to his enquiries about making payments while awaiting decisions on his rate relief application and VOA review. It also acknowledged the importance of signposting customers to discretionary support options where appropriate and has committed to using this learning to inform future service improvements.
13. In his complaint to the Council, Mr X said the Magistrates’ court agreed an instalment arrangement and the removal of summons costs. The Council responded saying they had no record of this when it reviewed Court Papers. During my enquiries Mr X confirmed the Council removed fees and he paid the outstanding debt.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. Whilst the Council apologised for elements of its communication, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures and was entitled to pass the unpaid debt to enforcement agents. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions that would warrant an investigation.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman