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.

Birmingham City Council (21 007 420)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to recover overpaid housing benefit. We will not investigate this complaint because there as a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (21 007 429)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 007 537)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is applying a council tax premium to a property he owns. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants which is the removal of the premium.

Hart District Council (21 007 694)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council requires him to pay council tax on an empty property during the Covid-19 period when he could not get new tenants and was refurbishing the property. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 751)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the complainant’s council tax reduction. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 008 995)

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council wrongly refused Mr X a business grant causing him financial hardship. We find fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has since paid Mr X the grant and £150 however we recommend the Council pay a further £150 for distress and uncertainty and take action to prevent recurrence of identified faults.

Richmondshire District Council (20 010 412)

Summary: Ms X disputes the Council’s decision that her property is now liable for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Hackney (20 010 923)

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s failure to pay her the correct amount of housing benefit and council tax support since the cyber-attack in October 2020. We found there was service failure in the delay in paying Miss B the correct amount of benefit and a continued delay in paying her all the money she is owed. This has caused her severe financial hardship for a significant period of time. The Council has agreed to pay her £250 and provide a time frame for paying her the outstanding money.

East Devon District Council (21 006 694)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council is trying to recover council tax arrears from the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (21 001 170)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to update her Council Tax account in November 2019 when she contacted it to advise she was no longer a student and now had a job. Miss X says the Council’s failure to update its record has put her into debt. Miss X says the way the Council has managed her Council Tax account and contacts has caused her anxiety and stress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for holding Miss X liable for backdated Council Tax charges. The Ombudsman also does not consider any fault by the Council caused Miss X a significant personal injustice.

London Borough of Croydon (21 006 289)

Summary: We shall not investigate Ms X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault on some points. The Council has agreed to seek a late appeal against its decisions to reduce Ms X’s housing benefit, which is a suitable remedy for other parts of the complaint.

London Borough of Hounslow (21 007 253)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her application for expanded retail discount. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Birmingham City Council (20 014 203)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in classifying her business as a supply chain business causing her to lose out on COVID-19 grant funding, in particular the business support package for the January 2021 lockdown. The Council did not unduly delay and was not at fault in its decision making on any grant scheme.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 842)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him a COVID-19 self-isolation grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Wandsworth (21 007 225)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a grant application. The evidence suggests Mr X was not entitled to the grant. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s communications.

Leeds City Council (20 004 786)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because the court has previously considered Mr Y’s liability for 2019/2020 and it is reasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge his liability for council tax for 2021/2022.

London Borough of Bromley (21 007 292)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council is recovering an overpayment of housing benefit first notified in 2017. Ms X has or had the right to appeal to the Tribunal dealing with housing benefit decisions.

Birmingham City Council (21 004 047)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s inadequate responses to a housing support provider regarding their clients’ housing benefit claims. This is because the person complaining is not a suitable representative for the benefit claimants.

London Borough of Brent (21 007 023)

Summary: We cannot investigate this council tax complaint because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 007 527)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council suspending Mrs X’s housing benefit and council tax support. This is because the complainant has already appealed to a tribunal and we do not find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Eastleigh Borough Council (21 007 596)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax banding as this decision is not made by the Council.