|
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.
Liverpool City Council (19 014 177)
Summary: Mr X moved into a new build property in August 2017. He complains there was an unreasonable delay in the Council issuing him with council tax bills for 2017/18 and 2018/19. There was fault that warrants a remedy.
Teignbridge District Council (20 002 717)
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.
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (20 005 498)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a disputed housing benefit payment and the Council’s alleged failure to return a deposit and pay for damage caused by Mr X’s tenant. Mr X has known about these issues since early 2018. His complaint is therefore made late and there are not good reasons for us to investigate now. We have also considered some of these matters before and will not do so again.
Somerset West and Taunton Council (20 007 466)
Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with her council tax cheques during the COVID-19 restrictions. There was poor communication by the Council, which caused Mrs X avoidable confusion and contributed to her accruing council tax arrears. At our recommendation, the Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 and to discuss a repayment arrangement with her. Therefore we shall not take further action on this complaint.
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 896)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her council tax appeal. We will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to a tribunal.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 007 795)
Summary: We 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.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 009)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mr X a grant under the government’s Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
London Borough of Ealing (20 001 804)
Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr B’s housing benefit overpayment debt that was listed on a Debt Relief Order (DRO).
North East Lincolnshire Council (19 021 137)
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council delayed in resolving a business rates dispute, failed to take into account information he provided, failed to keep him properly informed and failed to provide evidence that the liability order has been removed causing Mr B distress, frustration and financial hardship. We intend to discontinue the investigation as the issue of liability has been considered in court and Mr B had the opportunity to dispute the debts at that point.
Manchester City Council (20 002 642)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council processed a refund for overpaid business rates. We have therefore completed our investigation.
London Borough of Wandsworth (20 007 263)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment which the Council notified to the complainant in 2012. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
Bassetlaw District Council (20 008 232)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council entered his home in 2018 without permission and is seeking to recover a housing benefit overpayment of some £15,000. Mr X complains late about events in 2018. The Social Security Tribunal is to hear his appeal against the Council’s housing benefit decision.
North West Leicestershire District Council (19 007 566)
Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with the council tax account for the property he occupies. We find there was fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice to Mr B for which a remedy has been agreed.
Ipswich Borough Council (19 018 525)
Summary: Mr C complains for his client Mr D about the way the Council dealt with claims for Housing Benefit. We find no fault in respect of the substantive matters. There was fault in failing to tell Mr D during a telephone conversation that his claim had been cancelled, and there was fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint. However, those faults did not lead to injustice requiring remedy.
Wiltshire Council (20 007 656)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge council tax for an annexe at his home. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has accepted his payment for the council tax and has withdrawn a summons which it issued. There is insufficient remaining injustice which would warrant an investigation.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 702)
Summary: We will not investigate how the Council names the complainants on their council tax bills. We are unlikely to find they have been caused injustice that justifies our involvement.
London Borough of Lambeth (20 008 093)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it would be reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Swindon Borough Council (20 008 179)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the problem has been resolved.
Wolverhampton City Council (20 008 320)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data sharing as part of a fraud investigation. This is because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner and because the case has been considered by the tribunal. In addition, we cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions.
|
