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 Bromley (20 008 482)

Summary: Ms J complained her business could not receive support from a discretionary grant scheme set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision that Ms J’s business was not eligible for support.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 504)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not advising her in 2017 to claim council tax support. Ms X complains late, there is insufficient evidence of Council fault, and investigation will not achieve the desired outcome.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 988)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for a review of business rates payable. It is for the Valuation Office Agency to assess business premises for business rates purposes and is not unreasonable to expect the complainant’s company to use its right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (21 004 128)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about housing benefit overpayments created by the Council in 2019. It was reasonable for him to appeal the overpayment decisions to the Social Entitlement Chamber which is the proper body to consider benefit appeals.

Hyndburn Borough Council (21 004 587)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax payments. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Sheffield City Council (21 004 754)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a small business grant. We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.

Tamworth Borough Council (20 014 339)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his application for a Small Business Grant even though he applied before the closing date. He says his business has suffered financially as a result. We find no fault by the Council as Mr X’s business was not in receipt of small business rate relief when he applied for the grant. The relief was not awarded until October when the grant scheme was closed.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 192)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Cornwall Council (21 004 609)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax account. This is because the injustice claimed by Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Bristol City Council (20 002 038)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his application for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant without explaining why his business is not broadly similar in nature to businesses specifically listed as eligible. Mr X says he has suffered financial hardship. While the initial refusal letters failed to provide a detailed explanation for refusal, the Council has now explained its reasoning. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Cornwall Council (21 003 993)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 004 036)

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

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 299)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to impose an empty property council tax premium. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagrees with the Council’s decision.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 012 421)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly passed her council tax account to enforcement agents after it had agreed to put matters on hold whilst a payment plan was agreed. Miss X further complained the enforcement agents visited her property without warning and were intimidating and bullied her family. There was no fault in the Council’s actions or those of the enforcement agents.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 791)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax liability. This is because the Council withdrew the summons and associated costs issued to him and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

Uttlesford District Council (21 004 490)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because if Ms X disputes liability it was reasonable for her to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.