IRRV Alert - week ending 16th April 2021
News
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
||||
|
|
||||
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. London Borough of Islington (20 003 330)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a retail, hospitality and leisure grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision. The Council has offered Mr X £125 for failures in its handling of the application and delay in dealing with his complaint and this provides a suitable remedy for his injustice from these issues. Rushcliffe Borough Council (20 010 998)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to award him a government business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice. Wakefield City Council (20 010 911)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that about the council tax empty property premium. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Summary: We found the Council at fault as it failed to fulfil its offer to remove enforcement costs and fees from Mr X’s council tax debt. This put Mr X to the avoidable expense of paying costs and fees the Council had agreed to cancel. While the Council had already refunded the costs and fees, it agreed to apologise to Mr X for its earlier oversight. London Borough of Lewisham (20 010 905)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the complainant is not eligible for housing benefit. This is because the complainant is in the process of appealing to the tribunal. Waverley Borough Council (20 002 788)
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council handled a council tax account when Mr X and his partner separated. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and refund a credit on his council tax wrongly allocated to his partner. It has also made service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 444)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to revoke his company’s small business rate relief. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault and it agreed to provide a remedy. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (20 005 529)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his business a discretionary grant, causing financial risk and distress. We find fault by the Council. Though this did not affect the Council’s decision on Mr X’s grant we recommend the Council take action to prevent recurrence. Teignbridge District Council (20 005 832)
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X a business grant. An investigation would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view about the alleged fault. Southampton City Council (20 008 816)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to award his company small business rate relief. This is because this issue hinges around a question of liability which only the courts can determine. Watford Borough Council (20 010 248)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her council tax account. We will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 010 846)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and council tax reduction. This is because part of the complaint is late and because the complainant could have used his appeal rights.
|
