Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s liability for business rates as the courts are better placed to consider such disputes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council is holding her liable for an advertising hoarding she does not own, causing her distress and costs engaging a solicitor. She is also unhappy about other errors, since resolved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X and the Council have been in dispute over her business rates’ liability for an advertising hoarding.
6. Mrs X says the Council has since withdrawn a summons related to previous years’ liability. However, it has issued a further summons for the tax year 2023/24.
7. The case law on rates’ liabilty is highly technical and the courts are best placed to decide on this. Therefore, I will not investigate.
8. Mrs X is also unhappy about the Council’s decision making on her liability for business rates on a property. However, as this dispute has since been resolved, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the courts are better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman