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.

London Borough of Islington (20 013 445)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a business grant. The Council has now agreed to pay the grant, so there is no need for us to investigate.

London Borough of Bexley (21 001 811)

Summary: Ms B complained the Council refused her application for a discretionary housing payment when it had previously made an award and there had been no change in her circumstances. Without the payment she was unable to remain living where she was. She had to borrow money to make the rent payments and had to find other accommodation. There was fault but it did not cause significant injustice. The Council has apologised and taken action to improve how it records its decision making.

North Northamptonshire Council (21 006 915)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly manage the rates account for her business, Company E, and handled her complaints poorly, causing distress, time and trouble. We found the Council at fault in how it decided on rates’ liability and how it handled Mrs X’s complaints. We recommended it provide Mrs X with an apology, payments for time, trouble and distress and act to prevent recurrence.

Plymouth City Council (21 009 031)

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council sought a council tax payment. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice remaining to warrant investigation.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 399)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to backdate the complainant’s council tax discount for more than 6 years. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal (VT). The part of the complaint relating to misinformation and the Council’s lack of communication is premature.

Westminster City Council (21 010 223)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision regarding liability for council tax on a property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal for a remedy.

Manchester City Council (21 001 391)

Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a Small Business Grant. The Council accepts it knew Mr X had been occupying the premises since 2016 and trying to register for business rates. The Council has offered to now pay Mr X £10,000 to resolve his complaint.

Braintree District Council (21 003 394)

Summary: We have not investigated this complaint, about the Council’s discretionary test and trace support scheme. This is because an investigation could not lead to a substantially different outcome, and nor could it provide the outcome the complainant seeks.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 010 601)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s council tax. This is because the Council’s actions were sufficient remedy for any injustice caused to Mr X. A financial remedy is not warranted.

Cambridge City Council (21 002 983)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council publicised or administered its additional restrictions grant scheme. It was entitled to review and amend the scheme, and it has provided clear reasons for why it did so. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.

London Borough of Southwark (21 010 022)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a business rates discount. It is for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to decide whether the Council unlawfully removed the discount without notice. On whether Business Y is eligible for the discount, the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly.

Torridge District Council (21 010 419)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 972)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has managed the complainant’s council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 009 370)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint from a landlord about council tax liability because he has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, we cannot investigate what happened in court and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (21 009 858)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council asked the complainant for unnecessary information for his housing benefit claim. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Medway Council (21 010 074)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s single person council tax discount. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 002 216)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided a business was not eligible for its COVID-19 additional restrictions grant scheme. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Canterbury City Council (21 004 289)

Summary: Mr X complained about the business rates charges for a shop premises and that the Council did not award the Expanded Retail Discount (ERD). The Council properly considered entitlement to the ERD and took the view the premises were not eligible. There is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 008 126)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s Council Tax Reduction. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Ms X could have used her appeal rights.

Epping Forest District Council (21 008 947)

Summary: We do not propose investigating Ms X’s housing benefit complaint. The reasons are in the assessment section below.

London Borough of Bromley (21 009 479)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has wrongly calculated the complainant’s housing benefit since 2018. This is because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used, part of the complaint is late, and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 010 111)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the complainant’s benefits. This is because the complainant can use her review and appeal rights.

West Northamptonshire Council (21 010 210)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave him incorrect advice about the deadline for its discretionary COVID-19 business grant scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or to suggest the Council’s actions caused Mr X injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his ‘freedom of information’ request as it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 346)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about the council tax band applied to her property. This is because the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), rather than the Council, makes this decision and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Huntingdonshire District Council (20 012 181)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award business rates relief and a business grant to his businesses. The Ombudsman did not find the Council was at fault and it was entitled to refuse Mr X’s grant applications.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 009 412)

Summary: We do not propose to investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her application for a self-isolation payment. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council (21 009 508)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability for an empty property. It would be reasonable for Mr A to make an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council (21 008 552)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Rother District Council (21 008 606)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not award a council tax discount because the complainant can ask for a review. The Council has also addressed issues regarding accessibility in its application process. Further, the courts are best placed to consider matters concerning any personal injury.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 008 971)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment which arose in 2019. This is because it is a late complaint, and the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

Adur District Council (21 009 578)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. It would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 010 023)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s council tax bill. This is because any fault by the Council did not directly cause Miss X a significant injustice.

Watford Borough Council (21 001 800)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was wrong to refuse him a discretionary grant and handled his complaints poorly causing financial hardship and stress. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making on the grant but found fault in its complaint handling, causing injustice. We recommended the Council pay Mr X £100 for uncertainty and £100 for time and trouble.

Birmingham City Council (21 008 054)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

South Somerset District Council (21 002 402)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a test and trace support payment when she was forced to self-isolate because of COVID-19. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. It was therefore entitled to refuse Mrs X’s application.

Salford City Council (21 009 291)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax billing. This is because the Valuation Tribunal is better placed to consider the issue raised and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right of appeal.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 010 014)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly pursued him for business rates for which a third party is liable. This is because the matter concerns the start of court action. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to obtain payment from the third party as the issue affects ‘all or most’ of the people in its area. Both issues are excluded from investigation under Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974.

London Borough of Bromley (21 004 033)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bailiff action in 2016. This is because it is a late complaint.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 005 910)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments taken by council tax debt collectors acting on behalf of the Council who took unauthorised card payments. This is because the money has been refunded and an investigation would serve no useful purpose.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 130)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant. The Council was at fault for not responding to an application for Small Business Rates Relief in April 2020, for which it will apologise. There was no fault in the way it considered the grant applications.

Luton Borough Council (21 008 926)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on the complainant’s council tax liability. She has or had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the decision.

London Borough of Haringey (21 009 585)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to register the complainant’s business premises as empty. This is because the complainant has a right to challenge the Council’s decision in the Magistrates Court.