Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr B’s complaint about how the Council decided an application for business rates relief. This is because the courts are better placed to decide the issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr B represents a company liable for business rates. He complains that the Council failed to properly consider its discretion to apply business rates relief to an unoccupied part of the company’s business premises. He says the Council’s policy is restrictive and does not accord with the law.
2. As a result of this the Council refused the application to grant relief and the company had to pay the full amount of business rates.

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; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered the comments received before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and the Council’s policy

5. The law allows a person liable for business rates to ask the Council not to charge on a part of the premises where this will be unoccupied for a short amount of time.
6. The Council’s policy says relief is intended for cases where there are practical difficulties in occupying or vacating a property and it will not be applied to premises just because part is unoccupied. The policy also says the Council is less likely to grant relief on applications in many circumstances including where a business is moving its operations outside of the city. This is because income from business rates directly impacts on the Council’s financial position, and so any relief it grants will also impact on the Council’s income and council tax payers, and any application will be considered in that context.
7. The person can ask for a review of the Council’s decision to refuse an application. If the Council still does not to agree grant relief, the person can then only challenge that decision by judicial review. There is no further appeal or review process specified by law.

What happened

8. This is an outline of the complaint but is not a detailed account of what happened. Mr B represents a company. The company was moving from its premises but temporarily, it was still occupying part of the premises. The company applied to the Council for a reduction in the business rates because was only occupying part of the premises and would continue to do so for a short time. The Council refused the application. It referred to its policy and said as the company was moving its operations from the area, the discretionary reduction in business rates would impact on the Council’s income and so would impact on the area’s council tax payers.
9. Mr B, on behalf of the company, asked the Council to review its decision. In brief its position is that the legislation says that the impact on the Council’s income is an express criterion for some discretionary relief. But the legislation does not say it is part of the criteria for a reduction due to temporary under-occupation. Mr B also said that this type of discretionary relief does not impact on the Council’s income and he referred to the government’s instructions to local authorities for reporting business rates income.
10. The Council considered its position, but has decided that the impact of granting relief on the Council’s income is a valid matter to consider when it decides the application. The Council said it has not fettered its discretion and considers all applications on their merits.
11. In response to a draft of this statement, Mr B has added that government guidance says there is no restriction to the discretion but the Council’s policy wrongly restricts it to favouring operations moving into the area rather than away. He also raises guidance that suggests the relief is met centrally and so does not impact on the Council’s own income. Mr B says the Council has breached its statutory duty.
12. I have carefully considered the positions of the Council and the company. At the crux of this is that they disagree that the Council can take into account the impact on its own finances when deciding this discretionary relief. I have not found whether there is fault by the Council. The complaint asks us to interpret a disputed point of law. The courts are best placed to do this. I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have ended my investigation. Another body is better placed to decide the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman