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.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 797)

Summary: The Council was at fault for not communicating properly with Mr X, for which it should apologise. I have not found fault with the way the Council considered whether the business was eligible for Small Business Rates Relief, which meant Mr X’s business was not eligible for the COVID-19 Small Business Grant.

Cheshire East Council (21 001 691)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his applications for the Local Restrictions Support Grant, Restart Grant and Closed Business Lockdown Payment causing him financial hardship. The Council properly considered all the evidence provided and came to the view Mr X was not providing an in-person service to visiting members of the public at the business premises and so was not eligible.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 002 736)

Summary: Ms E complained about the Council’s reconsideration of a decision to refuse her business a discretionary grant under a scheme set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Hertsmere Borough Council (21 007 869)

Summary: Mr and Ms X complain about the way the Council has treated their housing benefit claims. We will not investigate this complaint because they appealed to a tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (21 008 234)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not tell the complainant he had council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and because it is a late complaint.

Worthing Borough Council (21 008 599)

Summary: Ms X complains about the way her claim for council tax support was handled. We will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to a tribunal and the matter has been remedied.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 666)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in making decisions regarding his late mother’s liability for council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation and any decision could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Norwich City Council (21 008 997)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 Test and Trace support payment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Cornwall Council (21 009 155)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for business rates on a property. We will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the courts.

Wakefield City Council (21 009 528)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application for a council tax single person discount. This is because the remaining injustice caused to Ms X does not warrant our involvement and we cannot change the outcome of the complaint.

West Suffolk Council (21 009 635)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about appeals against revised council tax banding and the listing of a new building. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge these matters by appealing to the Valuation Office Agency and the Valuation Tribunal.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 550)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending council tax reminder letters to Mr X. This is because there is insufficient remaining injustice to Mr X, or to Ms X who was dealing with the matter on Mr X’s behalf, to warrant our involvement.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 663)

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s applications for a Local Restrictions Support Grant and a Restart grant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 634)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to pay Mr X a COVID-19 business grant.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 138)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing a Local Restrictions Support Grant on the grounds that the Government did not require Mr X’s business to close in the second national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cornwall Council (21 009 288)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of COVID-19-related business grants. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Manchester City Council (21 000 913)

Summary: The Council was at fault because it wrongly considered city centre holiday properties were not eligible to pay business rates. However, the evidence does not show this led the complainant to miss out on COVID-19 business support grants. The Council was also at fault for not properly considering the complainant’s requests for reasonable adjustments. This caused him frustration, which the Council has agreed to remedy. It has also agreed to take steps to ensure it considers and implements reasonable adjustments for him in future.

London Borough of Merton (21 002 056)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection and the Council contacting Ms Y outside of office hours. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider data protection issues and there is not enough significant injustice to warrant our investigation.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 118)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him an Additional Restrictions Grant as he is not a home based worker. The Council was not at fault. The criteria for this grant is clear that businesses must have premises and Mr X does not. While he did not qualify for the Additional Restrictions Grant he was given a grant from the Micro Business Grant Scheme which was open to home based businesses.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 007 043)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax debt from 2002 and debt recovery actions. Ms X complains late. The courts have made decisions in the case and we cannot achieve what Ms X wants.

South Oxfordshire District Council (21 008 564)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s council tax complaint. The Council has apologised appropriately for the failings in communication and billing. We would not investigate the council tax account because there was a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. An appeal was not necessary because Mr X accepted and paid the final bill.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 411)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council instructed bailiffs to chase a debt in 2020 which she accrued before 2013. Ms X also complained the Council instructed bailiffs despite her continuing to pay this debt through her benefits. Ms X says this matter has caused her stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council chasing the debt through deductions to Ms X’s benefits. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council passing this matter to a bailiff for collection and for how the Council handling Ms X’s complaint. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to apologise to Ms X and apply a further reduction to Ms X’s debt of £72 in addition to the £150 already applied.

Corby Borough Council (20 013 903)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her a business grant, withdrew a business rates credit in error and handled her complaints poorly. She said she suffered financial loss, distress, time and trouble. We found the Council at fault. We recommended the Council provide Mrs X with an apology, £150 for time and trouble, £150 for distress, £10,000 for the missed grant and act to prevent recurrence.

Manchester City Council (21 003 736)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a business grant, causing financial loss. We have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Halton Borough Council (21 008 437)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has wrongly made the complainant liable for council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the matter is subject to legal proceedings.

High Peak Borough Council (20 013 212)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to update its records resulting in her missing out on a business grant. We find no fault by the Council.

Reading Borough Council (21 008 125)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and the way the Council obtained a liability order. This is because the matter has been considered in court and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Sheffield City Council (21 008 152)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what council tax band the complainant’s home should be in. The Valuation Office Agency, not councils, decides what council tax band a property is in.

Slough Borough Council (21 008 270)

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has enforced her council tax liability. We will not investigate this complaint because part of the complaint is late, matters have been considered by courts and issues of liability can be appealed to a tribunal. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has pursued the council tax arrears.

Swale Borough Council (21 008 667)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not contacting the complainant about council tax arrears. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Leeds City Council (21 009 065)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mrs X some business grants. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s not contacting Mrs X. The other part of the complaint, about Mrs X providing medical information, is not significant enough in itself to warrant investigation.

Leicester City Council (21 009 098)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decisions regarding his council tax liability. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

North Norfolk District Council (21 009 199)

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about council tax support 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.