|
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.
Blackburn with Darwen Council (21 007 461)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s council tax support scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Vale of White Horse District Council (21 007 573)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the business grants available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 012 373)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his applications for COVID-19 grant funding causing him financial hardship. The Council did not explain to Mr X that he needed to provide evidence not only of trading but also the date he was in rateable occupation of the premises. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by this fault.
Uttlesford District Council (21 000 160)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly withheld COVID-19 business grants and then paid half to a person without any business rate liability. The information provided shows Council amended the business rate account to include joint rate payers and then split the grant equally between the two parties. There was no fault by the Council.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 108)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to pay Mr X a COVID-19 business grant during the second national lockdown.
Plymouth City Council (21 007 690)
Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 589)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for Council tax. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
Torbay Council (21 008 047)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council communicated with him about a business rates matter. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 268)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for council tax as there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. Further, the matter has been remedied by the Council and is out of time.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 012 387)
Summary: Ms D complained on behalf of Ms E that the Council failed to make her aware she was liable for council tax when it placed her in temporary accommodation. We find the Council was at fault as it gave Ms E misleading information about whether she was liable for council tax. It also delayed and failed to appropriately respond to her complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.
London Borough of Enfield (20 012 845)
Summary: Mr X complained about the failure to provide a timely decision on his application for a discretionary grant. The Council failed to provide a decision explaining why the Phase Two application was refused. The Council also failed to used its general discretion to consider Mr X’s circumstances. This put Mr X to avoidable frustration and time and trouble in pursing the matter.
Salford City Council (21 008 491)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recent decision to recover a housing benefit overpayment which arose in 2016. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is a right of appeal against the Council’s decision.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 613)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not reducing council tax on empty properties and charging a 100% premium when his property was empty two years. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 001 048)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council took deductions from his Housing Benefit from October 2016 at the same time the Department of Work and Pension took deductions. Mr X also complained the Council incorrectly reduced his Housing Benefits from April 2019 to February 2020. The Mr X says the Council’s action caused his landlord to threaten repossession of his flat and caused him stress, anxiety and financial hardship. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council for taking deductions at the same time as the DWP. The Ombudsman also found fault with the Council incorrectly reducing Mr X’s housing benefits and for the delays in responding to Mr X’s complaints. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to refund Mr X his overpayments of £828.24 and pay him £1,500 for the prolonged distress, anxiety and financial hardship caused.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 488)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council referred to Ms X in an internal email as the injustice caused to Ms X from this is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.
London Borough of Hounslow (21 007 670)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not awarding more housing benefit, or a Discretionary Housing Payment, in 2018. This is because it is a late complaint and the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
Three Rivers District Council (21 007 815)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the date from which the Council has charged council tax and its decision not to award a council tax exemption. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Thurrock Council (21 006 597)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant has appealed to the tribunal and the appeal is now concluded.
|
