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 Southwark (21 011 660)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about benefit overpayments. This is because the complaint is late, the complainant has used her appeal rights and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 012 216)

Summary: Mr X disputes his liability for council tax and his recorded payments since 2012. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and part of the complaint is out of time.

London Borough of Southwark (21 012 903)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax account. This is because the remaining injustice to the complainant is not sufficient to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 349)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of COVID-19 business grants. The Council was at fault for not giving adequate reasons for refusing a discretionary grant in April 2021, for which it should apologise. There was no fault with its decision making in relation to the other grant applications Mr X made.

Wokingham Borough Council (21 002 420)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his application for a COVID-19 business grant causing financial difficulties. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision to refuse the grant. The Council considered the evidence provided by Mr X and took the view the business was not trading and therefore not eligible.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 116)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Basildon Borough Council (21 004 435)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her application for council tax reduction, as there is insufficient evidence of fault. It is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the Council’s decision not to backdate any council tax discount earlier than April 2019.

Westminster City Council (21 006 835)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused her business an Additional Restrictions Grant resulting in her missing out. We found fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommended it provide Ms X with an apology and payment for uncertainty, review its decision and act to prevent recurrence.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 012 673)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on housing benefit and council tax support claims. The matter has already been considered by a tribunal and we have no discretion to consider anything related to it including the costs incurred by the complainant.

Westminster City Council (20 006 164)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s delay in dealing with his application for a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant meant he missed the opportunity to apply for a discretionary grant. There is no evidence to suggest any action by the Council prevented Mr X from applying for the discretionary grant.

Adur District Council (20 012 280)

Summary: Ms X complains she claimed housing benefit, but the Council did not advise her she must claim universal credit. She says had to borrow money due to the Council’s failure to properly advise her. We found the Council was at fault and recommended a remedy.

Manchester City Council (21 002 470)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a business’s applications for several different COVID-19 support grants. This is because its eligibility rests of the question of its liability for business rates, which is a matter subject to an ongoing appeal to the magistrates’ court. We therefore cannot intervene in the matter.

Manchester City Council (21 005 212)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a business’s liability for rates, relief and a COVID-19 support grant. This is because there is an ongoing appeal to the magistrates’ court by a different business, the outcome of which will also affect this business’s situation.

Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 006 370)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to bill her for empty business rates. We discontinued our investigation as the courts are best placed to determine disputes about liability to pay business rates.

Birmingham City Council (21 012 603)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute regarding liability for business rates because this is a matter for the courts.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 807)

Summary: Mr X complains at receiving a summons for council tax non-payment despite complying with a previous agreement. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction.