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.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 012 426)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to pay Mr X a COVID-19 business grant under round 1 of its Additional Restrictions Grant scheme.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (21 004 374)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s responses to his requests for information arising from his housing benefit suspension in January 2020. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

North Somerset Council (21 005 594)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because part of the complaint is late and because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

London Borough of Brent (21 005 696)

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.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (20 010 018)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess his claims for small business rates relief and issue timely and accurate business rates bills. We found fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s liability for business rates, which led to backdated bills of about £14,000. What happened caused Mr X avoidable shock and distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and provide financial redress. The Council also agreed to arrange an affordable payment plan with Mr X for the outstanding business rates.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 001 147)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 321)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 774)

Summary: Mr X complains that he has been charged council tax by the Council when his property should be subject to business rates instead. We will not investigate this complaint because valuations are the responsibility of the Valuation Office Agency, which is a government body and not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Southampton City Council (20 013 490)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision the complainant’s business was not eligible to receive rates relief under the expanded retail discount. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

Hertsmere Borough Council (20 006 445)

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council gave her incorrect information about her entitlement to a single person’s discount on her council tax. We found no fault by the Council in this matter.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 010 717)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his application for a Small Business Grant before the deadline of 30 September causing his business financial hardship. Mr X sent all requested information before the deadline but the Council did not deal with it until 8 October. While this delay is fault, the Council has remedied the injustice caused by making a payment of £10,000 to Mr X.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 115)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not inform him promptly that he was not entitled to a Local Restrictions Support Grant because his business was not within its area. Mr X has now been paid the grant by the correct local authority which provides a remedy for his complaint. It is not proportionate to investigate the issues relating to communications and so the Ombudsman will discontinue his investigation.

London Borough of Haringey (21 004 675)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recovery of housing benefit overpayments. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the independent benefits tribunal about the overpayment amounts. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way in which the recovery is being undertaken by the Council.

Eastbourne Borough Council (21 005 274)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate. There is also not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Sevenoaks District Council (21 005 380)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the amount of business rates payable for his business premises. This is because the issue is the result of a decision by the Valuation Office Agency rather than any actions by the Council.

Broxbourne Borough Council (20 012 462)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to grant rates relief to the complainant’s business under the expanded retail discount, nor in its decision the business was not eligible for a retail, hospitality and leisure support grant. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

Central Bedfordshire Council (21 003 885)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to respond after the complainant asked for help to pay her council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

London Borough of Camden (21 005 095)

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

Epping Forest District Council (21 005 311)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award another Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.