London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 016 883)
Category : Benefits and tax > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 19 Feb 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly misleading the complainant as to the amount he is liable to pay in respect of business rates. This is because the Council has issued a summons for the complainant to appear in a magistrates court over the issues raised and we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in such circumstances.
The complaint
- The complainant (Mr X) complains the Council misled him as to the amount of business rates he is liable to pay. Specifically, he says he was informed by the Council he did not have to pay any business rates yet it has since issued demands for amounts, as well as a summons to appear in a magistrates’ court.
- In summary, Mr X says he feels fundamentally misled by the Council which has resulted in a lot of uncertainty. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to withdraw the summons for him to attend a magistrates’ court and allow him to challenge the amount through the Valuation Office Agency.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate this complaint as Mr X has been issued a magistrates’ court summons in respect of the business rates. This is because when a court summons is issued, this marks the Council initiating legal proceedings. We cannot investigate any matter in respect of court action. This extends to whether Mr X is liable for the amount being demanded. Further, we have no power to order the Council to withdraw the summons.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman