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.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council (20 013 134)

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to clearly explain how her Council Tax bill was calculated and did not offer her an affordable special payment arrangement for Council Tax arrears. She complains about the Council’s consideration of her vulnerability when writing to her about a possible Magistrates Summons. She says this has caused her distress. Based on the evidence seen so far, the Ombudsman does not propose to find fault by the Council.

London Borough of Bexley (21 001 407)

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment while she was pregnant and caring for a young child. The Ombudsman finds fault by the Council, which caused Miss Y distress and uncertainty. This is because we find the Council failed to consider government guidance on good practice when handling applications, such as Miss Y’s, where the applicant is pregnant and has childcare duties that are a barrier to getting work. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y, make her a payment and make a fresh decision on her application. The Council has agreed to make several service improvements.

Birmingham City Council (21 012 443)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Cheshire East Council (21 012 750)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax liability because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 715)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing benefit claim as she can appeal to a tribunal.

Salford City Council (21 013 350)

Summary: Mr X, a landlord, complains about council tax liability issues and misadvice by the Council. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal about any dispute as to liability.

Salford City Council (21 013 548)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disputed overpayment of housing benefit. The complaint is out of time and there was a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Durham County Council (21 003 577)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused her application for discretionary housing payment. There was fault in the Council’s actions in the way it considered Miss X’s application, but this did not lead to an injustice. The Council also failed to refer Miss X to the welfare benefit team which caused her uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and complete the referral to the welfare benefits team.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 386)

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to consider backdating a Discretionary Housing Payment and review the amount it awarded. We did not find fault in how the Council considered the amount to award Mr B. However, we found fault in the Council’s failure to consider Mr B’s application to backdate his payment which caused him inconvenience. The Council agreed to reconsider Mr B’s request for a backdated payment to address the injustice.

London Borough of Barnet (21 012 482)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to correct a bank mistake regarding a council tax payment. The issue has now been resolved, but we could not in any event investigate the Council taking court action because of what happened.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 013 458)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s application for a test and trace support payment. There is not enough injustice to Mr X for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to investigating.

Charnwood Borough Council (21 013 623)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax discounts. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Northumberland County Council (20 013 426)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly refused his application for a COVID-19 business grant because his home address is outside the Council area, and this caused financial hardship. The Council’s published grant criteria required businesses to be located in and operating within the council area and because Mr X is a market trader without a fixed business address his home address was used. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the grant as it based its decision on the published eligibility criteria.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 545)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to apply a council tax exemption. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Horsham District Council (21 012 566)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award another Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 013 306)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing one of Miss X’s applications for a test and trace support payment. The evidence shows the Council was not at fault.

Milton Keynes Council (21 013 383)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about loss to the public purse from how the Council administered a council tax account. This impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area and is therefore not within our legal remit.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 734)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s administration of a business grant scheme, its decision on her application and its complaint handling, causing her distress and financial loss. We found the Council at fault causing Miss X injustice. We recommended the Council provide Miss X with an apology, payment for distress, feedback on her grant application and evidence it will carry out Equality Impact Assessments in future.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 768)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant, which added to the financial difficulties his business suffered during the pandemic. The Council was at fault for taking too long to make its decision and did not fully explain its reasons, causing injustice to Mr X for which it should apologise.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 142)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed paying him a COVID-19 business grant and wrongly refused other COVID-19 business grants, which added to the financial difficulties the business suffered as a result of the pandemic. The Council was at fault for a delay in reconsidering one of the grants after Mr X appealed and for not addressing the additional information Mr X provided at that stage. This caused Mr X injustice, for which the Council should apologise.

North Norfolk District Council (21 013 100)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a COVID-19 small business grant. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.