Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council acted with fault when it did not prewarn him it could charge VAT on the garage it rents to him. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was at fault for its failure to tell him that it should be charging him VAT for the garage it rents to him. Mr X says that if he had known this he would not have rented the garage.
2. Mr X says this has caused him significant distress and financially disadvantaged him. He wants the Council to allow him to pay the amount he was paying before.

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s previous Garage Management Policy was adopted in 2020. Around that time, HMRC changed the rules around charging VAT. Under the rules Council tenants had to pay VAT on the rental of a garage if they lived more than ½ mile away from the garage.
7. The Council had a legal obligation to comply with the new rules but took no steps to amend its policy at that time.
8. Mr X began to rent a garage from the Council In October 2023. It was over ½ mile from where he lived.
9. The Council adopted the HMRC rules in February 2024. It wrote to Mr X in March and said the rules would apply from 1 April. As a result, Mr X’s rent increased from £38 to £50 a month.
10. Mr X complained to the Council. He said that if he had known the rent was going to increase he would have waited for a garage to become available within ½ mile of his home.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The rent increases and the injustice Mr X says stems from them are not because of actions for which we can hold the Council responsible. Rather they result from a change in the rules at a national level which the Council had to follow. The fact the Council delayed in doing so conferred a benefit on Mr X for a period of around 6 months whilst his rent did not include VAT.
12. Mr X said he would have waited for a garage to become available closer to where he lives if he had known about the increase, even though the waiting list was longer. It is still open for him to do that. Although he will go onto the list six months later than if he had made that decision in October 2023, the fact remains he has benefited from the use of a garage during that period. And the fact that Mr X chose to pay £38 rent on the garage when he signed the agreement in October 2023 means that he must have felt it beneficial to him to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman