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.

Colchester Borough Council (20 008 374)

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not award his business a grant under a scheme to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We uphold the complaint finding the Council did not properly consider Mr B’s liability to pay business rates. This caused an injustice as it created uncertainty about whether Mr B therefore had an entitlement to a grant. The Council has accepted this finding and has agreed action to remedy Mr B’s injustice, as set out at the end of this statement.

Rushmoor Borough Council (21 002 776)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to collecting an overpayment of housing benefit from the complainant’s earnings. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Sevenoaks District Council (21 003 146)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change Mr X’s Council Tax banding. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

City of York Council (21 003 163)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably applied the empty homes premium to his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any dispute about the determination of the policy can only be challenged in the courts by judicial review. Further, any dispute about his liability for the premium to his property could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Tendring District Council (21 003 177)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Ms X having to pay extra rent for the house she rents from a housing association. This is because the Council is not responsible for Ms X’s tenancy and rent charges. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council reducing her housing benefit. Responsibility for housing support passed to the Department for Work and Pensions as part of Universal Credit in 2019

Ashfield District Council (21 003 188)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused his application for expanded retail discount for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

London Borough of Croydon (20 009 281)

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s handling of housing benefit payments for the tenant of a property he owns. He also complained about the actions of the Council’s officers who he considered encouraged the tenant to deny access to the property. He said the Council did not respond to his correspondence and his requests for redress. He said that as a result he incurred costs and did not receive the housing benefit payments he should. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will make a small further payment to him.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 009 903)

Summary: Mr C complains the Council wrongly refused him an NHS Test and Trace Support Payment. We find fault in this decision. We consider this caused Mr C an injustice as he did not receive a payment to which he was entitled. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Birmingham City Council (21 000 773)

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to advise him of possible alternative funding when it refused his business grant application. We will not investigate this complaint as it is the responsibility of the businesses to look into what funding they may be eligible for and apply as appropriate.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 001 722)

Summary: Ms X disputes liability for council tax on a property. We will not investigate this complaint because she can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Nottingham City Council (21 002 896)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about delay in the Council sending him a demand for council tax. This is because the remedy already offered by the Council is sufficient.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 185)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant a single person council tax discount for a property Mr X will be moving to in due course. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and if Mr X wants to challenge the Council’s decision, we would reasonably expect him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

South Holland District Council (20 006 486)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to stop setting up market stalls for traders and its decision making on discretionary grants, causing her financial loss. We find the Council at fault as it did not have due regard to its public sector equality duty and it did not allow Mrs X a right of review. We recommend the Council provide an apology, explanation, payment and review its decision on Mrs X’s grant. We also recommend the Council revisit its decision making on stalls and take action to prevent recurrence of identified faults.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 002 664)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 Test and Trace support payment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 003 138)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing a Covid-19 business Restart Grant as the evidence does not suggest the Council was at fault.

Dorset Council (21 002 741)

Summary: Mr X complained about the level of council tax in his council’s area compared with other authorities. We will not investigate this complaint because it concerns matters which affect all or most of the inhabitants of the council’s area and it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.