IRRV Alert - week ending 30th April 2021
Information Letters
News
Circulars
Consultations
Reports
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 Lambeth (20 000 566)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council took until March 2020 to correctly assess a housing benefit claim made in October 2016. Ms X says this delay led directly to her eviction in 2017. There is significant delay in this case which is fault. However, the benefit underpayment did not clear Ms X’s rent arrears and so it cannot be said that the eviction would not have taken place but for the Council’s fault. Teignbridge District Council (20 011 829)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse their application for a grant for small businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 005 250)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly held her liable for business rates. This is because disputes over liability for business rates are more appropriate for consideration by the magistrates’ court. Coventry City Council (20 006 181)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council taking recovery action for council tax since 2017. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because concerns some matters which he was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for submitting complaints. There are no good reasons to disapply the time limit on considering this complaint. His current council tax account is subject to recovery by the Council and there is insufficient evidence of any fault in procedure which would warrant an investigation. Rochford District Council (20 010 741)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council made errors to his council tax account. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied by the Council. London Borough of Harrow (20 011 110)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied. Wakefield City Council (20 011 632)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is billing the complainant for council tax on an unhabitable property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hillingdon (20 011 653)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a lack of support for his business during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Herefordshire Council (20 012 167)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to provide him with accurate information about his council tax account. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Bromley (19 015 728)
Summary: The Council was at fault due to its bailiffs overcharging Miss V more than she was liable for in council tax arrears. This caused Miss V an injustice, but the Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions of the Council and bailiffs in remedying this. London Borough of Lambeth (19 018 861)
Summary: The Council took over a year to reinstate Ms X’s council tax reduction and then mismanaged paying her the financial remedy it offered her for this fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £750, and take action to improve its service. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 145)
Summary: Ms Y complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing benefit applications and requests for an appeal. We found fault by the Council as it failed to progress Ms Y’s housing benefit appeals to the Tribunals Services. The Council also failed to clearly advise Ms Y of its decision to write off an overpayment of housing benefit and action it . We have recommended a suitable remedy so have completed our investigation.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to award a grant to his business and its poor communication, causing financial and personal stress. We find fault in the Council’s decision making and complaint handling. We recommend the Council apologises to Mr X, pays an amount for uncertainty, time and trouble and acts to prevent recurrence. City of York Council (20 010 909)
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to increase a business grant. It is unlikely investigation would find any fault by the Council but for which the Council would have increased the grant.
|
