|
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.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 013 094)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his applications for the Additional Restrictions and Local Restrictions Support Grants causing financial hardship. As Mr X was not entitled to a grant under either scheme due to the nature of his business and we find no fault.
Sheffield City Council (21 001 918)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on her Restart Grant application. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Tandridge District Council (21 004 105)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate his housing benefit. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.
Birmingham City Council (21 007 256)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a COVID 19 business restart grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.
Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 007 399)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly issuing a council tax bill. This is because the remaining injustice in this case is not sufficient to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has already said.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 007 408)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants application for a grant under the Self Isolation Payment Scheme. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 009 513)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to give Mr X a self-isolation support payment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.
Derby City Council (21 005 784)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not rebate his council tax for what he claims to be a poor service. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. The complaint also relates to all or most of the population of the area.
Cheshire East Council (21 006 907)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council charged Mrs X for Council Tax arrears that she owed. This is because the Council has proposed a fair remedy and we would not be able to add anything to the outcome.
Manchester City Council (21 007 080)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not entitled to housing benefit or a discretionary housing payment. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I cannot investigate the complaint that the Council should not evict the complainant because I cannot investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.
Birmingham City Council (21 007 094)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a period of council tax liability because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Slough Borough Council (21 007 245)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability because Mr Z can make an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Harrow (21 005 857)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a Restart Grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Richmondshire District Council (21 006 051)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax billing matter as there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to apply a 25% single person discount as it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal against its decision.
Mid Sussex District Council (21 006 540)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s council tax account. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.
Wiltshire Council (21 006 586)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to advise him about its discretionary grant scheme. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.
Maidstone Borough Council (21 006 980)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a new council tax bill even though the complainant paid a bill in full in April. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.
Torbay Council (21 007 019)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of the empty home premium to the complainant’s property. A dispute about liability for the premium to the property can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 009)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused him a business grant and delayed issuing its decision. We find fault in the Council’s decision making process. We recommend it provides Mr X an apology and payment for uncertainty. Further that it remakes its decision and takes action to prevent recurrence.
|
