|
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.
Wakefield City Council (21 009 749)
Summary: Mr X, on behalf of his mother Mrs Z, complained the Council’s request for the repayment of a Small Business Grant is based on incorrect information and the repayment will cause financial hardship. The Council gave Mr X the opportunity to provide evidence the premises were occupied and the business trading on 11 March 2020 but the Council was not satisfied this was the case. There is no fault in how the Council reached its decision.
Swale Borough Council (21 018 584)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to have proper regard to her financial difficulties, could relieve her debt by a further discretionary housing payment, and failed to properly handle a complaint and subject access request. The Council has not caused Ms X injustice this year and there is no reason to reconsider what happened in previous years.
London Borough of Barnet (22 000 012)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the way the Council calculated the complainant’s housing benefit resulting in an overpayment. We could not now investigate effectively what happened several years ago and the complainant can provide new information to the Council for assessment.
North Norfolk District Council (22 000 215)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide exemption from council tax for Mr X’s property because he could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Havering (22 000 231)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recovery action for business rates. The complaint is about how the Council conducted court action and we cannot consider this.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 007 369)
Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of Mr C that the Council had refused to forward his housing benefit appeal to the Tribunal service. We found the Council at fault, but we do not consider this caused Mr C an injustice.
Cannock Chase District Council (21 007 544)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for an Additional Restrictions Grant, causing him financial loss, distress and wasted time. We found fault in the Council’s communications causing injustice. We recommended the Council apologise to Mr X, consider a late grant application and take action to improve its services.
St Albans City Council (21 014 613)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of an Attachment of Earnings Order to recover council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Darlington Borough Council (21 017 467)
Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal or contact the Valuation Office.
Durham County Council (21 018 612)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax reduction as Ms X can appeal against the Council’s decision not to award it to her to the Valuation Tribunal.
Blackburn with Darwen Council (21 018 914)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s challenge to the Council’s decision on his council tax reduction claim. He has exercised his right of appeal against the Council’s calculation of his claim to the Valuation Tribunal. We cannot investigate complaints about a Council’s reduction scheme itself as this may only be challenged in the courts.
Shropshire Council (21 016 733)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s policy on council tax exemptions and the empty property premium is unfair. The policy can only be questioned at court via judicial review.
|
