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 Hackney (21 002 049)

Summary: Ms X complains about her council tax bills. We will not investigate this complaint because the fault complained of was too long ago to investigate and there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Newham (21 002 341)

Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council adding the empty property premium to Mr X’s council tax. This is mainly because the Council has recently removed the extra council tax and Mr X considers the matter closed.

London Borough of Lambeth (21 001 909)

Summary: Mr X complains about misleading information the Council gave him in connection with his council tax account. We will not investigate the complaint because the Council has taken action to address its fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Leicester City Council (20 007 044)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way council tax support correspondence is written by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied and a right of appeal exists for any dispute about any decisions.

Eastbourne Borough Council (21 000 752)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s enforcement action for the complainant’s non-payment of council tax. The complaint concerns matters which have been considered by a tribunal and the courts, we cannot investigate. Also. the Council has agreed to waive court costs and offered the complainant a new arrangement to clear arrears. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Croydon (21 002 489)

Summary: Ms X complains about her liability for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 893)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly took enforcement action against him for a council tax debt he had already paid. The Council was at fault. It failed to consider payments Mr X had already made and failed to return the account from enforcement agents once it was cleared. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £400 to recognise the distress, frustration and time and trouble this caused and to carry out an internal review.

Malvern Hills District Council (21 000 986)

Summary: Mrs X complains about a lack of transparency in the Council documentation about council tax charges. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council, or that we can add to what the Council has already said.

Bromsgrove District Council (20 013 405)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal. In addition, he could complain to the Information Commissioner regarding his complaint the Council has not responded to his information request.

London Borough of Lambeth (20 014 228)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about entitlement to council tax support because the complainant can appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 002 022)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because the Council has decided to make an award and the complainant asked us to close the case.

Northumberland County Council (21 002 100)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant has appealed to the tribunal.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 005 224)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused his business a discretionary grant yet gave grants to others. Mr X says he has suffered cash flow issues, increased costs, time and trouble. We find no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X a grant. At this stage we will not investigate a premature complaint where we are unlikely to find fault causing injustice.

London Borough of Hillingdon (20 009 399)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider all information he provided in support of an application for a discretionary grant. He says his business has lost out financially. We find the Council did consider all the information provided and then used its judgement to decide the business had not demonstrated a 30% loss due to COVID-19. This is not fault.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 428)

Summary: The Ombudsman found some fault on Ms N’s complaint about the Council’s actions when it pursued her for unpaid council tax for a property she no longer owned. The Council identified fault during the complaints process, offered her a payment for the time and trouble caused, and set out the actions it would take to prevent it happening again. I found no other fault causing her an injustice.

London Borough of Barnet (20 009 781)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his application for the Expanded Retail Discount and a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant causing financial difficulties to his business. The Council refused the applications on the basis the business premises were not easily accessible to visiting members of the public. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision.

Runnymede Borough Council (21 002 072)

Summary: Mr X complains about his council tax bill. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and he can dispute any award of council tax support to the Valuation Tribunal.

South Somerset District Council (21 002 414)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way their council tax account was administered. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to warrant investigation.