The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s business rates payment. The Council has agreed my invitation to provide a suitable remedy.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council did not deal properly with his business rates payment. He said this caused him avoidable stress, time and trouble, including receiving a court summons.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council. I invited the Council to provide a remedy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
Mr X gave the Council a cheque for his business rates of £7,222.17 in February 2022. Mr X had made the cheque payable to ‘Elmbridge B.C.’ The Council stamped the cheque with its full name ‘Elmbridge Borough Council.’ The bank did not accept that alteration and returned the cheque to the Council. So the bank did not pay the money for Mr X’s rates.
I told the Council that, if we investigated this complaint, it was likely we would find there was fault by the Council that had caused Mr X injustice because: The Council did not tell Mr X about the problem with the cheque. Instead, the Council did nothing until it issued a final demand two months later. Had the Council contacted Mr X promptly, it is likely, on balance, the matter would have been resolved then, without any of the later events. I appreciate Mr X should perhaps have realised during that time that the money had not left his account. However, the onus to act here was mainly on the Council.
When Mr X received the final demand and telephoned the Council, the Council incorrectly said it had never received his cheque. It was therefore understandable that Mr X spent time going to the bank to investigate. That would have been avoided had the Council told Mr X what had happened.
The Council accepts it did not reply substantively to a letter Mr X sent on 22 April 2022. Instead, the Council only sent back a standard letter explaining Mr X’s cheque must state the Council’s name in full. Mr X’s letter of 22 April had said he was withholding £222.17 of the business rates because of the inconvenience of dealing with the matter. The Council should have replied explaining the full rates were owed and indicating the Council would take recovery action if the full amount was not paid. Instead, the Council did nothing until 25 May 2022, then issued a court summons for the £222.17. Mr X did not receive a full explanation of the events and the Council’s position until August 2022.
As Mr X paid the balance on receipt of the summons, it is likely, on balance, he would have done the same had the Council replied properly to his letter of 22 April. Therefore the summons was avoidable, on balance.
I note the Council reimbursed the summons costs, it says as a goodwill gesture. However, as I have explained, it is likely the summons resulted mostly from fault by the Council. I welcome the reimbursement, but I do not consider it adequately remedies the injustice caused by the Council’s faults.
Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman said he wants the Council to: Pay him £315. Mr X says this is because his letter of 22 April to the Council said he would charge £35 for each piece of work if the Council contacted him again about the matter and he says there have been nine pieces of correspondence.
I am not persuaded Mr X’s saying the Council would need to pay him £35 each time actually obliged the Council to do so. Anyway, the Ombudsman does not base financial remedies for avoidable time, trouble and stress on a unit rate a complainant suggests or a set rate for time spent, or on the actual costs of telephone calls, stationery, postage, and so on. Rather the Ombudsman can recommend a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.
Confirm what procedural changes the Council has made to prevent a recurrence.
I am mindful any issues with the Council altering cheques are not likely to affect large numbers of ratepayers. I also note the Council now intends to stop accepting cheques for business rates payments. In all the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to pursue this point.
Change the Council’s ‘public records’ about this matter.
Mr X is concerned about possible damage to his business’ reputation. I have not seen evidence of any such impact. It is not clear if the record of a summons being issued is publicly available, but even if it is, it seems unlikely anyone would search for it. Moreover, the summons did not lead to a liability order, and anyway liability orders in the magistrates’ court are not publicised and used for credit checking in the way county court judgments are. The Council refunding the summons cost has dealt with the main practical impact of the summons. I do not see any remaining injustice here that is significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this point.
Agreed action
At my invitation, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £250 within one month of today. This is a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s avoidable frustration, time and trouble. It is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedying complaints.
Responding to a draft of this decision, Mr X said this remedy is acceptable.
Final decision
We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman