|
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.
Southampton City Council (21 000 381)
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged it paid money intended to be a council tax refund into a fraudster’s account rather than back to the complainant.
Trafford Council (21 005 502)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment which arose in 2011. This is because it is a late complaint, the complainant could have used his appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Stroud District Council (20 012 907)
Summary: Mrs B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with changes to her son’s benefit entitlement which created overpayments. We cannot find fault with the Council’s actions.
London Borough of Lewisham (20 012 959)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to refuse her a Local Restrictions Support Grant, resulting in her missing out on this funding. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.
London Borough of Lambeth (21 004 856)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
London Borough of Barnet (21 005 815)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to calculate council tax correctly. It would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Islington (21 001 069)
Summary: The Council was at fault, because an officer did not properly explore the reason for the complainant’s call about business rates, which meant it gave him misleading advice. But this call alone should not have been enough for the complainant to believe his business had been granted an empty property exemption from business rates. Nor do we consider the business could have qualified for the exemption if it had been given different advice. There is some injustice to the complainant in the frustration caused by the Council’s fault, but the Council has already taken appropriate steps to address this. We have therefore completed our investigation.
North Kesteven District Council (20 012 058)
Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in paying a Small Business grant to Mrs X. This added to the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and put her to the time and trouble of pursuing the Council. It should apologise and pay her £300 for the injustice caused. It was not at fault for refusing other COVID-19 business grants nor for the level of grant paid under its Additional Restrictions – Severe Impact scheme.
London Borough of Lambeth (20 013 474)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing a COVID-19 Test and Trace payment to Mr X on the grounds his application was late. However, it was at fault for not making it clear to potential applicants that a deadline applied. It has since changed the information on its web-site.
London Borough of Enfield (21 002 329)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not refunding a Council Tax payment to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions which warrants our involvement.
Wokingham Borough Council (21 003 868)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council contacting Mrs X’s employer about council tax arrears and disclosing her husband’s personal data. This is because data protection issues are matters which fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner which is a body better placed to consider these matters. It is reasonable for her or her husband to complain to that body.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 889)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to award her business a government grant for businesses affected by the Council-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Woking Borough Council (21 006 001)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it relates to an alleged criminal offence of assault and so is best dealt with by the police.
Manchester City Council (20 012 892)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council mismanaged her Council Tax account from June 2018 to May 2020. Ms X says the Council failed to apply the relevant reductions to her Council Tax she was entitled to. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in handling her contacts and providing a refund of the overcharges. Ms X says this caused her financial hardship, stress and distress. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council’s management of Ms X’s Council Tax Account. The Council applied Ms X’s Council Tax Support exemption in March 2020 from June 2018 and offered Ms X £650. The Ombudsman considers this suitable to reflect the Council’s fault and the injustice Ms X experienced.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 899)
Summary: There was no significant fault in how the Council considered, and refused, a COVID-19 test and trace support payment. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.
East Hampshire District Council (20 013 803)
Summary: Mr X complained he was not awarded the same COVID-19 grants as some of his competitors putting him at a disadvantage. Mr X’s business was not mandated to close and so was not entitled to some of the grants he claims his competitors received from different local authorities. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council administered the grants for Mr X.
|
