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 (20 005 499)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions to withdraw rates relief and a grant from his business and how it dealt with his complaint, causing upset, stress and business risk. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but find fault in how it communicated with Mr X. We recommend the Council provides an apology, payment and acts to improve its administrative practice.

Luton Borough Council (20 008 094)

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council applied the benefit cap to her housing benefit claim and dealt with an increase to her rent. There was fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X’s query about how the benefit cap and rent restrictions applied to her. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration, time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Ms X a financial remedy, explain the rent restriction rules to her and review its processes. This was a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation.

New Forest District Council (20 008 609)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s administration of the COVID-19 small business grant scheme. Although the complainant’s business did not receive a grant, we cannot say this is because of an error by the Council, and the Council has now agreed to make a discretionary payment to the business anyway. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Tandridge District Council (20 008 818)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council ignored that she was a joint tenant and paid her the wrong amount of council tax reduction. There was fault with how the Council awarded Miss X council tax reduction and investigated her complaint. The Council offered to write off the overpayment. It also agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy for the distress and frustration it caused and arrange affordable repayments for any remaining arrears. We are satisfied with the agreed remedies and have therefore completed our investigation.

Torridge District Council (21 000 341)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his council tax account as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our involvement.

Bedford Borough Council (21 000 431)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault for included the complainants student income when calculating council tax support. This is because it is reasonable to expert her to exercise her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Telford & Wrekin Council (21 000 100)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in pursuing the complaint for repayment of a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the complaint is late.

City of London (20 005 807)

Summary: Mr Y complained the City of London Corporation (the Corporation) unreasonably delayed dealing with his housing benefit claim and his request for a reconsideration of its decision. He also said it failed to respond to his complaint. As a result, Mr Y said he experienced distress and uncertainty. The Corporation was at fault for failing to respond to his complaint. It was also at fault for its delay in deciding Mr Y’s housing benefit claim and his reconsideration request. It has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him an acknowledgement for the distress and uncertainty it caused him. It also agreed to review its appeals process and remind its staff of the timescales it is expected to follow when deciding housing benefit claims and reconsiderations.

Leicester City Council (20 008 236)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge him Council tax, resulting in unfairness. He also complains about the Council’s intimidating behaviour. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process however we find fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommend it provide an apology and make a payment for time and trouble.

Northumberland County Council (20 014 358)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her application for a grant for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision and any fault in the advice it gave Mrs X did not cause her significant injustice.

London Borough of Bexley (21 000 092)

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