Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s liability for business rates. This is because Mr X had the opportunity to dispute liability in court. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about any breach of data protection.

The complaint

1. Ms W complains for Mr X. She says the Council misadvised Mr X, subjected him to delays and errors and raised a business rates liability order against him with no ability for him to challenge this,
2. She also says the Council breached Mr X’s personal data security and failed to follow complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms W and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X failed to tell the Council his business ceased trading in 2021. It continued to issue annual business rates bills which Mr X did not pay.
9. In 2023, the Council was told someone had moved into the former business premises. It contacted Mr X who told the Council the business ceased trading two years before.
10. The Council made Mr X liable for business rates at the property. It awarded a three-month empty and unfurnished exemption from February 2021 – the date Mr X says the business vacated the premises. In November 2023 it sent a bill to Mr X at the property which was returned by the post office as undeliverable.
11. The Council says it traced details of the agents who were dealing with the residential part of the property and the bill was sent to them who passed this onto Mr X. Ms W says this is a breach of Mr X’s data protection rights. However, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to report this to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is the body set up by parliament to deal with information rights.
12. During this period Mr X raised a challenge on business rates with the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).
13. In 2024, the VOA confirmed the property was removed from the non-domestic rates (business rates) assessment list from 1 April 2023.
14. The Council chased Mr X for business rates payment from 2021 and 2022 which remained unpaid.
15. Ms W says the Council told Mr X only the VOA can remove the property from the non-domestic rates (business rates) lists. However, the VOA confirmed it cannot remove the property from the list prior to 1 April 2023 as the earlier list has closed. It advised that he should contact the Council with concerns about billing before April 2023.
16. However, Mr X received a summons from the magistrates’ court for non-payment of business rates. Before the date of the court appearance, Mr X chose to enter a repayment plan with the Council to prevent further legal action. However, by entering the repayment plan Mr X effectively accepted liability for the unpaid business rates.
17. If Mr X believed he was not liable for the business rates, it is reasonable to expect him to have attended court to argue that he is not liable for the debt. Therefore the restriction at paragraph three applies.
18. Ms W also complains the Council failed to follow its complaint procedure. We expect councils to follow their complaint procedures. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms W’s complaint because:
• It was reasonable for Mr X to ask the court to decide his liability for business rates.
• It is reasonable to expect Ms W to complain to the ICO about breaches of Mr X’s data protection rights; and
• We do not consider it is a good use of public funds to investigate complaints about the complaint procedure alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman