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.

Cotswold District Council (20 008 553)

5803806579. Mr X complained the Council: was wrong to send him reminders to pay his council tax bills, as he was making payments as agreed; did not properly consider his request to write off arrears; and did not promptly action his request to apply for council tax support. Finding

Birmingham City Council (20 010 168)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his application for the Expanded Retail Discount and the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant. He says the financial loss has had a significant impact on his business. The Council gave different reasons for refusing the grant and misdirected itself about eligibility which is fault. It reviewed Mr X’s eligibility, but the decision did not changed. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to recognise his frustration and time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

South Kesteven District Council (20 013 543)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly interpreted government guidance to exclude her business from being able to claim grants for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (21 002 744)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to recover an outstanding debt from a council tax credit. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault causing injustice.

Leicester City Council (21 003 799)

Summary: The law says we cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about disputed council tax liability as it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal to make a determination on liability.

South Gloucestershire Council (21 005 143)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s increase of council tax levels in the past four years. This is because it is a matter which affects all or most of the residents of the Council’s area and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for these reasons.

Thurrock Council (21 000 659)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council taking court action against her when she fell into arrears with her Council tax. She also complained about the actions of enforcement agents when they visited her home in 2020 and removed some of her belongings. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the enforcement agents’ recovery action.

Woking Borough Council (21 002 428)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council incorrectly sent him a council tax summons. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has remedied the matter.

London Borough of Lewisham (21 002 865)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of the complainant for Council Tax arrears. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

London Borough of Croydon (21 002 935)

Summary: Miss X complained about her council tax liability for a decant property after she was moved from her original tenancy in 2019. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of tenancies by social housing landlords. It would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Valuation tribunal about her council tax liability if the Housing Ombudsman does not resolve this to her satisfaction.

Salford City Council (20 011 196)

Summary: Mr T says the Council took a direct debit payment from him for council tax when he had nothing left to pay, leaving him unable to buy essential goods. The Council accepts fault for its actions and has already offered a suitable remedy.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 505)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was recovering an overpayment of housing benefit despite the Tribunal asking it not to. There is no fault with how the Council reached its decision to continue with the recovery.

Pendle Borough Council (20 011 367)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused him a small business grant, causing financial difficulties for his business. We find no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse a grant but we find fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommend it provide an apology, time and trouble payment and take steps to prevent recurrence.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 013 876)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant.

London Borough of Hillingdon (20 000 219)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for Universal Credit and about its delay in dealing with his complaint. There is no evidence to confirm the Council gave Mr X wrong advice. But we find fault with the Council’s complaints handling and its lack of clarity about Mr X reclaiming Housing Benefit. This caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr X and has agreed to make a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

London Borough of Hounslow (20 011 321)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused him a business grant, causing financial difficulties. We find fault in the Council’s decision making process causing uncertainty. We recommend the Council provide an apology and review its decision.

Ashfield District Council (21 000 962)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax account and a council tax charge which he disagrees with. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council or that we can add to what it has already said. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against the Council tax charge should he wish to challenge it.