|
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.
Manchester City Council (21 006 849)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide information about business grants causing him to miss out. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Bromley (21 011 401)
Summary: Mrs C complains about how the Council handled her housing benefit. She says she did not receive letters about changes to her housing benefit award which led to her being in arrears, and some of her housing benefit was allocated towards a property she had already vacated. We have discontinued this investigation as the Council has already resolved the matter the Ombudsman is able to investigate.
Westminster City Council (21 017 043)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award her two self-isolation support payments. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 503)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a company which, in 2020, did not receive a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We find fault in the Council’s customer service and in its explanation for the non-award. This has caused injustice in the form of uncertainty, time and trouble and the Council has agreed to apologise for this. However, we do not consider the Council could have paid the company a grant for reasons explained in this statement.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 126)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a company which, in 2020, did not receive a payment from the Small Business Grant Fund set up to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We find fault in the Council’s customer service and explanation for the non-award. This has caused injustice in the form of uncertainty, time and trouble and the Council has agreed to apologise for this. However, we do not consider the Council could have paid the company a grant for reasons explained in this statement.
London Borough of Southwark (21 016 964)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly sending Mr X a summons for council tax. The Council has offered a payment to Mr X in recognition of its fault, and we cannot add to that. I do not consider the Council’s contact with Mr X about a single person discount caused him sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.
West Lindsey District Council (21 017 190)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on council tax liability as this is best dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal Service.
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 705)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council unreasonably charged him for court costs and enforcement agent fees for collecting business rates when it sent all relevant information to the wrong address. We found fault as the Council’s enforcement agents did not serve Mr X with a new Notice of Enforcement to his current address. This caused Mr X an injustice as he has paid avoidable enforcement fees. We have recommended a suitable remedy and so are minded to complete our investigation.
London Borough of Newham (21 010 449)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.
East Suffolk Council (21 015 875)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with council tax for a property the complainant rents to tenants. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has cancelled the court costs.
Brighton & Hove City Council (21 016 997)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about increased council tax bills. This affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area and is therefore not within our legal remit.
London Borough of Bexley (21 003 025)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainants’ council tax account. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council has sought to recover unpaid council tax.
Elmbridge Borough Council (21 007 624)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him incorrect advice resulting in his missing out on financial support for his business. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.
|
