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 (21 000 032)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants. There was no fault with the way the Council considered his grant applications.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 002 300)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a discretionary business grant, causing financial loss. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault in its complaint handling. We recommend it provides Mr X with an apology, pays him £100 for time and trouble and acts to prevent recurrence.

London Borough of Southwark (21 002 436)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to register his business for rates purposes, resulting in his missing out on a business grant. Mr X also complained the Council failed to give him advice on business rates prior to 2015. We will not investigate matters prior to 2015 due to the time passed. We find the Council at fault in its handling of Mr X's business rates account. We recommend it provide an apology and payment for time and trouble.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 789)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants. There was no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s grant applications.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 108)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant causing financial loss. There was no fault in the way the Council considered the grant applications.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 114)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants causing stress and financial loss. There was no fault in the way the Council considered his applications.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 005 272)

Summary: When considering Mr X’s application for the Local Restrictions Support Grant (closed) the Council used the wrong test as the government had clarified what it meant by the term “trading” in respect of these grant schemes. However, Mr X would not have been eligible for the grant even if the Council had applied the correct test.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 009 739)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, I cannot question a decision that has been made in court.

Reading Borough Council (21 010 225)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error in the way the Council sought recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the Council has already provided a fair response.

Nottingham City Council (20 004 817)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council adding a premium to his council tax bill on a property it sold him. We found the Council did not act with fault in either selling the property or later billing and taking council tax recovery action against Mr X.

Boston Borough Council (21 010 726)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because the law says we cannot investigate if someone has appealed to a tribunal.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 011 187)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council will not grant a single occupancy allowance for her council tax liability. We will not investigate this complaint because she can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

East Devon District Council (21 011 192)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not award a council tax discount on his property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Harlow District Council (21 000 231)

Summary: Miss X complained about the refusal of the Additional Restrictions Grant and the failure to respond to a complaint about a racist comment. There is no fault in the decision to refuse the grant but there is in relation to the consideration of the complaint about a racist comment. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is proposed.

Amber Valley Borough Council (21 001 809)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her application for the Additional Restrictions Grant and that the decision only to pay it to businesses with a loss of 50% or more has ignored her hardship. The Council did give incorrect and conflicting reasons for refusing the application. However, it carried out a review using the information provided by Mrs X and on applying the correct eligibility criteria, determined she was not entitled to the grant.

Wokingham Borough Council (20 005 355)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing benefit entitlement. The complainant has appealed to a tribunal. There is no other fault within our jurisdiction we should investigate.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 003 807)

Summary: There Council was at fault for making contradictory decisions about the status of the complainant’s business. The Council has now reviewed the matter and decided to award the business a COVID-19 restart grant.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 004 385)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to charge her council tax on an empty property she owned between May 2020 and September 2020. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether to use its discretionary powers to apply a discount to Miss X’s council tax. The Council has already reviewed its decision about Miss X’s council tax and waived the payment. That remedies any injustice caused.

Swale Borough Council (21 010 144)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Discretionary Housing Payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 011 157)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s attachment of earnings to Ms X’s salary to recover council tax arrears. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Liverpool City Council (21 010 101)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of council tax arrears. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has told the Ombudsman it will be writing off the balance owed and so we could not achieve anything more.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 271)

Summary: We should not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Sheffield City Council (21 011 289)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the complainant’s council tax support in 2017. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Eastleigh Borough Council (21 008 369)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding the withholding of his council tax and the failure of the Council to reply to his concern about its ethical investment policy. There is no fault in the Council demanding Mr X pays his council tax. He may reasonably pursue his underlying concern with councillors.