|
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 Hounslow (21 008 711)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council issued a court summons for not paying council tax. The Council has offered a satisfactory remedy to the complaint. It has apologised, explained what went wrong, and offered £200.
Selby District Council (21 008 879)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council’s policy for determining how much council tax reduction someone should receive is unfair and does not accurately reflect her universal credit payments. She says this means she receives less of a reduction in her council tax and the matter has had a negative effect on her mental health. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions. It is entitled to design its own policy to administer its council tax reduction scheme.
London Borough of Wandsworth (21 012 725)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the matter has been heard by the tribunal. We will not investigate the complaint about the complainant’s council tax account being closed in error because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Sheffield City Council (21 014 242)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. The complaint is about the start of court action. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about council tax demands.
London Borough of Haringey (21 014 702)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way Mr X’s council tax account was administered because the matter has been remedied and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant investigation.
Leicester City Council (21 000 855)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council charged him a council tax premium as his property was vacant for more than two years. He says it was only vacant for the full two years because of his ill health and lockdown so it is unfair for the Council to charge this. The Ombudsman does not find fault how the Council considered Mr B’s request to waive the empty home premium.
London Borough of Ealing (21 004 730)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability. It is about the start of court action and involves issues that have already been considered by the courts. It would also have been reasonable for the complainants to use their right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if they thought they should not pay the original demands or claim council tax support if they believe they could not afford to pay.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 690)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided to recover a business grant paid to him, placing his business at risk and causing him stress. We found fault in the Council’s decision making causing Mr X uncertainty. We were satisfied with the actions taken by the Council to review its decision and prevent recurrence. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology and payment for uncertainty.
East Lindsey District Council (21 014 313)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s revision of Ms X’s council tax bills. This is because Ms X has appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal which we would reasonably expect her to use.
Burnley Borough Council (21 002 086)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council wants her to repay a business grant it awarded her. She said the Council did not properly consider her evidence, and will not let her repay it in instalments. Mrs X said the situation made her ill, caused her to lose sleep, and caused a financial strain on her and her family. We find the Council at fault, and the fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a fresh decision considering all of the relevant evidence.
Wokingham Borough Council (21 013 482)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that a Council officer, dealing with her council tax account, was insensitive and dismissive about her health condition. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice by apologising, paying Ms Y £150, and indicating it is taking action to ensure there is no repetition.
Rugby Borough Council (21 014 222)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to award him grants and reliefs from business rates in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Croydon (21 014 411)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged fraud. This is because Miss Y’s complaint relates to matters which have been considered by the courts.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 466)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council charged him an empty property council tax premium and refused to reduce it. We cannot lawfully question the Council’s council tax exemption policy or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Sheffield City Council (21 014 480)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax liability. He has exercised his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and the matter is outside our jurisdiction.
Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 014 497)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Sevenoaks District Council (21 000 384)
Summary: Mr A and Mr B complain the Council is enforcing a historic council tax debt unreasonably and has not suitably communicated with Mr A about the matter. This has resulted in enforcement action. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it handled pursuing the debt, as it acted appropriately and followed legislation.
London Borough of Islington (21 004 397)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his application for the Additional Restrictions Grant causing him financial hardship. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s application.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 602)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused two COVID-19 Test and Trace payments. Since the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed the applications and made the payments. We have therefore ended this investigation on the basis there is now no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.
Darlington Borough Council (21 014 113)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him a COVID-19 hardship payment for the 2021/22 financial year because there is no evidence of fault in its decision. We will not investigate the Council’s publication of misleading information on its website as the issue did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
Gedling Borough Council (21 001 463)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s application for an additional restrictions grant, as it was entitled to decide the evidence did not support his eligibility. There was also no fault in how the Council decided his other grant applications. The Council was at fault for wrongly telling the complainant his application had been successful, but its quick rectification and apology for this error was an adequate remedy. We have therefore completed our investigation.
Thurrock Council (21 006 951)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s refusal to grant rates relief to the complainant’s business under the expanded retail discount. This is because the complaint is late.
Torbay Council (21 012 377)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s council tax complaint because the Council has accepted our recommendation to settle the complaint. The Council will apologise to Mr X, pay £100 for his time trouble and distress, revise down the council tax bill on his former home and deal with the practice issues.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 013 103)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for business rates relief as there is no evidence of fault in the decision. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s demand for payment of his business rates arrears as it has entered into discussions to agree a payment plan and there is nothing more we could achieve.
London Borough of Croydon (21 013 678)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because part of the complaint is late.
Arun District Council (21 014 084)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s benefits. This is mainly because the relevant events were too long ago for there to be a realistic chance of us reaching a clear enough view on the relevant points.
Vale of White Horse District Council (21 014 305)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing two council tax bills at once, as the remaining injustice to Miss X is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.
Leicester City Council (21 014 387)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
