Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council issued incorrect invoices to his company for two and a half years and failed to correct them or to address other issues associated with the centre where his business was based. This is because we could not achieve the main outcome Mr B is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council issued incorrect invoices to his company for two and a half years and failed to correct them or to address other issues associated with the centre where his business was based.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us he stopped paying the incorrect invoices when the Council failed to correct them. He said the Council has refused to look further into the matter. He said as a result of this and the Council’s failure to deal with other complaints, his company moved out of the centre where it had been based. He asked the Council if he could keep a virtual office at the centre. He told us the Council agreed to this initially but a week before they left it said it would not agree unless they paid the outstanding invoices. Mr B said by then they had incurred expenditure on graphics for the new office. He said it was not apparent to the tenants at the centre how they should make complaints about it.
6. The Council has told Mr B it has taken advice on the VAT issue and it is content it is taking the correct course of action. But it has accepted it had previously made errors in its invoicing. In its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had provided a final account summary, which included credits to correct the errors it had made, and an invoice showing the outstanding balances. So, having considered the matter, it said it did not intend to issue individual amended invoices. The Council has asked Mr B to settle the outstanding account balances to avoid formal recovery action.
7. Mr B wants the Council to issue corrected invoices which it has said it will not do. This outcome is not something we could achieve for Mr B. We do not have the powers or specialist expertise to rule on VAT disputes. If the Council takes the matter to court, Mr B would have an opportunity to say why he disagrees with the amount the Council says is payable.
8. It is not possible to establish with sufficient certainty exactly what the Council may have said to Mr B orally about his request for a virtual office. The Council subsequently told him in writing his request did not accord with its virtual tenancy policy. By this time Mr B said he had already incurred expenditure. In the absence of sufficient evidence to show the Council initially agreed to Mr B’s request, this is not an issue we would pursue further.
9. We would not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s complaint process for tenants at the centre where he was based when we are not investigating the main issues he has raised. He is now based elsewhere. It is open to the remaining tenants to pursue their own complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not achieve the main outcome Mr B is seeking.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman