A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

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.

Birmingham City Council (20 001 802)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in processing her appeal against its decision to cancel Housing Benefit. The Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy so we have completed our investigation.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 010 357)

Summary: We shall not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council seeking repayment of some housing benefit. This is chiefly because the complaint is late. It is also because Miss X had the right to appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Lambeth (19 018 055)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council provided to the complainant about her housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because it is a late complaint.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 000 927)

Summary: Mrs X complained about a lack of financial support from the Council during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was at fault for not addressing her complaint about the discretionary grant paid. It should apologise and review its complaints process.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council (20 003 287)

Summary: Ms E complains the Council did not award her a small business grant under a scheme to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse a grant nor the advice it gave to Ms E in reply to her enquiries about potential eligibility.

London Borough of Lambeth (20 004 233)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to assist his business, which suffered financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was at fault for giving incorrect advice about its discretionary grant scheme and for failing to respond to an enquiry about the business rates hardship fund. It should apologise. It was not at fault for refusing a small business grant or rates relief.

Bristol City Council (20 005 064)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax and council tax reduction. This is because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

London Borough of Southwark (20 010 619)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council held him liable for council tax on a property he rented from a landlord. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough Of Barnet (20 010 861)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to hold her liable for council tax on a property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 156)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly apply an empty property exemption correctly when tenants moved out of her rental property, which led to enforcement action and associated fees. Most of Ms X’s complaints are late and in addition, she could have complained to the Valuation Tribunal about the empty property exemption. In the period I have considered, the Council was not at fault in how it handled Ms X’s council tax accounts.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 662)

Summary: The Council failed to update Mrs B’s address on its council tax database. This led to unnecessary enforcement action. The Council has agreed to reimburse half of the enforcement fees Mrs B paid and it will take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Birmingham City Council (20 004 879)

Summary: Mr X complains about an additional fee of £235 added to his council tax debt during the enforcement process. We have found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, remove the enforcement fee and make service improvements.

Eastbourne Borough Council (20 008 967)

Summary: We 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.

London Borough of Redbridge (20 009 579)

Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council considering Mrs X liable for some council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Hounslow (20 009 587)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to collect her council tax direct debit payments. We will not investigate the complaint because our investigation will not add to that already carried out by the Council. It is from her bank that Ms X needs to obtain the relevant information to pass to the Council.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (20 009 848)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a business grant available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Halton Borough Council (20 010 314)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing council tax reminders to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (20 002 548)

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it accepts the conduct of advisors on telephone calls was unacceptable. The Council’s apology remedies the anxiety caused to Miss X. There is no evidence of fault on the Council Tax owed or the recovery of arrears from her Universal Credit.

Birmingham City Council (20 003 530)

Summary: Mr C complained that he arranged to clear his council tax debt but despite this, his case was passed on to the enforcement stage. He also complained of threatening behaviour by the enforcement agent and his vulnerability was not considered. We find fault because the Council’s enforcement agent failed to act on Mr C’s claim of vulnerability. However, this did not cause him a significant injustice. There is further fault as the enforcement agent failed to respond to Mr C’s email and it incorrectly increased the amount he owed. The enforcement agent apologised to Mr C and corrected his account. The Council has also now waived the outstanding enforcement fees. This is a suitable remedy.

New Forest District Council (20 004 707)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse a Small Business Grant, causing financial difficulties to his business. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Buckinghamshire Council (20 009 785)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication on a council tax matter as there is no evidence of fault causing significant injustice.