|
Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 006 373)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Darlington Borough Council (20 006 553)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly making the complainant liable for council tax. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.
London Borough of Ealing (20 006 649)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
London Borough of Croydon (20 006 684)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that it is unreasonable for the Council to bill the complainant in 2020 for council tax that arose in 2017. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Plymouth City Council (20 006 925)
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr X a business grant. Investigation is unlikely to find any fault by the Council but for which Mr X would have been eligible for a grant.
Preston City Council (20 007 046)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit decision because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 067)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 007 101)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 245)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr Y a business grant. Any investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 478)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council sent his council tax debt to bailiffs when he had already paid. He says this caused stress, distress, and took him time and trouble to resolve. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.
Northumberland County Council (20 006 911)
Summary: Ms X complains about her liability for council tax on a property and the Council’s subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time, there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the bankruptcy is a matter for the courts.
Manchester City Council (19 019 284)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council charged him business rates for a business he does not own, delayed resolving the matter, and delayed responding to his Subject Access Request. He says this caused stress, put him under undue pressure, and cost time and trouble. The Ombudsman largely does not find the Council at fault. However, the Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to respond to Mr X’s emails within the timeframe it set out. This caused Mr X injustice. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for this. We are satisfied that this apology remedies the injustice caused. The Ombudsman will not investigate the part of Mr X’s complaint about the Subject Access Request because it has already been investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Stroud District Council (20 008 415)
Summary: The Valuation Tribunal is the appropriate body to decide Mrs X’s dispute about her council tax liability. We will not therefore investigate.
London Borough of Harrow (20 004 760)
Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with the recovery of his council tax arrears. The Council agreed it was at fault for not responding to Mr B’s proposal for a repayment plan. However, the Council’s apology and removal of the summons costs are an adequate remedy. In addition, the Ombudsman found no evidence of any fault in the Council’s enforcement action.
Vale of White Horse District Council (20 006 667)
Summary: Ms X complains about delay by the Council in considering her request for council tax relief. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant injustice as the request was not allowed and the Council has remedied the compliant about delay
Bassetlaw District Council (20 007 145)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s council tax policy includes an empty property premium charge of 100%. The Ombudsman cannot lawfully question the Council’s council tax policy and cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
London Borough of Brent (19 015 493)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss H’s complaint about council tax at her property. Miss H had the right of appeal to an independent tribunal and it is reasonable to expect Miss H to use this right of appeal.
London Borough of Merton (20 005 580)
Summary: A council taxpayer complained the Council was unreasonably asking her to pay enforcement agents’ fees relating to a previous council tax debt. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter because it is unlikely we would establish sufficient evidence to justify finding fault with the Council.
Bristol City Council (20 006 154)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s behaviour regarding unpaid council tax and who is liable for it. This is because Mr Q has rights of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Oxford City Council (19 015 569)
Summary: Mr Y complained the Council delayed dealing with his housing benefit appeal. The Council was at fault for the delay in passing the appeal to tribunal. It was not at fault for reconsidering the appeal but was at fault for not passing the appeal to tribunal after the reconsideration. Mr Y has now had his appeal. The Council has agreed to review its procedures to prevent recurrence of the fault and to pay Mr Y £150 to acknowledge the uncertainty, distress and financial difficulties caused by the delay.
Oxford City Council (19 017 366)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Ms Y, the Council delayed dealing with her housing benefit appeal. The Council was at fault as it delayed passing the appeal to Tribunal. It was not at fault for reconsidering the appeal before doing so but it should have passed the appeal to tribunal when it upheld its decision after the reconsideration. This did not cause Ms Y a significant injustice as the Council did not take recovery action during the time of the appeal and Ms Y has now had her appeal. The Council should review its procedures to prevent recurrence of the fault.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 104)
Summary: There was no fault by the Council. The Council changed the billing for Council Tax once it was informed of the full details of the new tenants. Phone calls made to the Council before this date did not include the tenant’s names so the account could not be changed. The landlord of the property says he had to pay the Council tax and then wait for refund to avoid a court judgement against him.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 005 973)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of business grants available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Charnwood Borough Council (20 006 579)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a small business grant. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
London Borough of Hillingdon (20 005 517)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a business grant application. The main issue has been resolved as the Council has now paid the grant. Investigation would be disproportionate in the circumstances and would be unlikely to find fault significantly affecting what happened.
Teignbridge District Council (20 005 310)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a business grant available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.
London Borough of Hillingdon (20 005 320)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding business rates relief. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Ashfield District Council (20 005 707)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award a business grant. This is because the evidence suggests the Council was not at fault.
London Borough of Merton (20 000 686)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s refusal to provide a business rates’ discount and business grant, placing their business at risk of closure. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
London Borough of Harrow (20 004 265)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not paying him a business grant. Any investigation would be unlikely to find fault.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 729)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to give him a business grant, causing him financial difficulties. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
Craven District Council (20 005 206)
Summary: The Ombudsman will investigate Mr X’s complaint about the amount the Council paid his business under its discretionary grants scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Eden District Council (20 000 647)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not supported his business with any grant funding following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not uphold the complaint, finding the Council could reasonably decide Mr B’s business did not qualify for support.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 003 306)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Manchester City Council (20 004 782)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 003 282)
Summary: Ms X complains about the amount the Council paid her business as a grant. Ms X also complains the Council is wrongly pursuing her for business rates. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council originally decided to award her business a grant. The Council has also now paid the full amount and so an investigation could not achieve anything more. Ms X’s liability for busines rates has been decided in court and so the matter is outside our jurisdiction.
Cornwall Council (20 004 704)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not paying her a Covid-19-related business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Colchester Borough Council (20 004 151)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his seeking a reduction in council tax. The Ombudsman does not have the legal power to investigate this complaint.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 083)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mrs X a business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
|
