Summary: Mr X complains about the Board’s decision not to reduce his drainage rate charge to nil. We will not investigate the complaint because the complaint is a late complaint, we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Board’s decision not to reduce his drainage rate charge to nil. He says he has no evidence his concerns about this matter were put to the Board in November 2019 and that his land should not have been included for rate payments at the outset. He says the Board can reduce the charge and should do so because he has not used the land in any way for years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Authority, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Board. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Since 1984 Mr X has paid drainage rates to the Board for land he owns.
6. In 1991 a revaluation of the rates payable by landowners took place. As part of this process landowners were able to appeal against the charge assessed for their land.
7. In October 2019 Mr X complained to the Board about the charge he had to pay and set out his case as to why he thought it should be reduced to nil. The Board considered his complaint at its AGM in November 2019 but informed Mr X that he remained liable for the drainage rates and that they could not be removed for the reasons he had provided.
8. In February 2020, Mr X paid his drainage rates for the year 2019/20. The Board did not hear from him again until December 2020 when he said he objected to the Board’s decision from 2019 and that he would be taking his complaint to the Ombudsman.
9. In the meantime, the rates for 2020/21 have become due and as Mr X has not paid, the Board sent him a letter warning of court action for the debt.

Assessment

10. Mr X’s time to appeal against the assessable value of his land had been in 1991 following the revaluation. As he had this alternative remedy 30 years ago, this is not a complaint we will investigate now.
11. Moreover, the Board did consider his complaint in 2019 and informed him of the decision it made after the AGM. It is not open to us to review the merits of this decision and if Mr X believes the Board is wrong in law he can seek legal advice to challenge it through the courts.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X explained that his precarious employment situation around the time of the revaluation in 1991, and for the years that followed, prevented him from pursuing an appeal or his concerns about the charge until recently. While Mr X’s comments on this point are noted, the time passed since he first began paying the rates is over 35 years and we will not investigate the matter now.
13. Mr X says he is arguing his case from a moral standpoint and that he wants someone/some body to resolve matters. However, it is not our role to resolve complainants’ problems and we do not investigate very complaint we receive. In this case, while Mr X may be concerned with the principle of the matter, the actual annual charge is minimal and it is not at a level where we would regard his injustice as significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is a late complaint, we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman