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 Waltham Forest (21 016 010)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s council tax arrears. This is because it is too late now to investigate council tax matters from earlier years and if Mrs X has a new complaint, she must first raise it with the Council.

London Borough of Barnet (21 016 834)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. The Council has agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X, and we are satisfied with the action it intends to take.

Lancaster City Council (21 008 838)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take account of relevant powers to help her in respect of business rates at a pub following the death of the landlord during lockdown. Mrs X says the demand for payment of around £10,000 causes her significant financial hardship. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of her eligibility to the Expanded Retail Discount and Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant but it was at fault for not inviting her to make an application for Hardship Relief. Mrs X can now make such an application which is a suitable remedy.

Birmingham City Council (21 010 165)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute over liability for council tax. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Hounslow (21 015 664)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated the complainant’s housing benefit and raised an overpayment. This is because the complainant can use her review and appeal rights.

Central Bedfordshire Council (21 016 480)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council sent him council tax bills. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Stafford Borough Council (21 016 707)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision regarding council tax liability and delay in dealing with her planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and a Planning Inspector.

London Borough of Barnet (21 006 741)

Summary: Mr D complained about how the Council handled his council tax account. He also says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments and delayed responding to his complaints. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed responding to the complaint. It also failed to address all the issues raised in the complaint and failed to properly investigate whether it had enough information to backdate Mr D’s council tax reduction claim. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr D’s injustice.

Vale of White Horse District Council (21 016 638)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has billed her for too much council tax because her home is in the wrong property band. There is no fault by the Council because it bills according to the banding decisions of the Valuation Office Agency. Those decisions can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Burnley Borough Council (21 005 347)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was inappropriately seeking to recover a COVID-19 business grant paid to his business in April 2020. The Council paid the grant in error. This was fault for which it should apologise. It was not at fault for seeking to recover the grant.

City of York Council (21 009 673)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him during a phone call that unless he paid his council tax arrears he would shortly be subject to court proceedings. We do not find fault with the Council as Mr X had not paid council tax for several months and was given sufficient notice in writing that a court summons would be issued if he did not pay the arrears before a certain date.

Mansfield District Council (21 014 514)

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 the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 016 675)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about benefit overpayments. The Council has now offered a reasonable remedy and Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 717)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants, causing financial hardship. There was fault in the way the Council considered whether the business was a restaurant or takeaway. It also failed to consider whether the fact the business operated from a food court meant it was eligible for a Restart grant even if the business was deemed to be a takeaway. It should apologise, pay Mrs X £300 for the uncertainty and additional time and trouble she was put to, and reconsider her Restart grant application.

Harlow District Council (21 008 940)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused her businesses grants, did not address her complaint properly and reported inaccurately on finances. We did not investigate the Council’s reporting as there is a more appropriate body. We found fault in the Council’s communications with Mrs X that did not affect its decision making. We recommended the Council provide Mrs X with an apology and address her outstanding complaints, pay £150 for time and trouble and take action to prevent recurrence.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 010 238)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s business rates relief under the expanded retail discount scheme, and a grant under the retail, hospitality and leisure scheme, because his complaint is late. There was no fault in the Council’s decision the business is not eligible for partial rates relief.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 015 794)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a small business grant. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

East Cambridgeshire District Council (21 015 843)

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her council tax payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 041)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover council tax support overpayments. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.