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.

Manchester City Council (20 010 483)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council suspended his housing benefits claim. Mr X also complained the Council took a biased and obstructive approach in handling his complaint. Mr X says the Council’s actions put him under stress and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s management of Mr X’s housing benefits but found fault with the Council’s complaint handling.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (20 013 376)

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council incorrectly applied an empty property charge to her council tax account. She also says it failed to identify its error in its complaint process. We find fault with the Council. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

South Gloucestershire Council (20 013 939)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to the complainant to warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Wandsworth (21 002 235)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax band because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 719)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a government grant for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Havant Borough Council (21 003 015)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax account as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Liverpool City Council (21 003 517)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about incorrect advice that the Council provided in relation to council tax payments. This is because we could not add anything to the Council’s investigation.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 783)

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to set up her sister’s Council Tax account for the correct time periods and failed to apply the relevant exemptions. Ms Y also complained the Council passed the Council Tax arrears to a debt collection agency despite the charges being incorrect. Ms Y says the Council’s actions caused a worsening of her sister’s mental health and stress for both of them. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise to Ms Y and her sister and to pay Ms Y £300 for the frustration, inconvenience and distress caused. The Council also agreed to provide a guidance document and training to staff.

Swindon Borough Council (20 010 477)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly advised the complainant to claim Universal Credit. This is because it is a late complaint and there were appeal rights the complainant could have used. We also cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions.

Blaby District Council (21 001 958)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment and fraud investigation. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal, it is a late complaint, and we cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions or investigate allegations of crime.

Wiltshire Council (21 003 480)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to collect her council tax last year and expects her to pay two years tax in the next 12 months. The Council has taken appropriate action to correct its error.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 002 977)

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

Manchester City Council (20 013 455)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to refuse retail rates relief to his business, negatively affecting its finances. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault as it delayed communicating its decision, causing uncertainty. However, we consider it is not appropriate to make recommendations in the circumstances of this case.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 694)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s recovery of council tax from and its billing from 2003 to 2011 which she says is unresolved. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns some matters which she was aware of before the 12-month period for receiving complaints. She has exercised a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about liability for her current billing and we cannot consider any further dispute about liability now. We cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings.

Epping Forest District Council (20 011 411)

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decisions to refuse rates relief and a grant to her business, causing stress, time and trouble and a negative financial impact. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but find it at fault for delay in responding to Miss X. We recommend it provides an apology and payment for time and trouble.

London Borough of Havering (21 001 212)

Summary: Mr X disputes the council tax debt the Council asserts. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 584)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a COVID-19 Restart Grant. This is because the issue concerns the Council’s interpretation of government guidance and there is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision.

Westminster City Council (21 002 618)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s council tax debt enforcement actions. There is insufficient evidence of fault or consequential injustice. Investigation is not likely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council (21 003 216)

Summary: Mr X and Ms X complain that the Council misled them about a council tax liability. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 003 219)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to backdate council tax support and housing benefit. This is because the complainant had the right of appeal to the Council and then a tribunal.