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 Newham (21 018 642)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively increase the complainant’s housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 000 202)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not award a grant to his business. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Salford City Council (22 000 775)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to update Miss X’s name on its systems after her gender reassignment. The county court and the Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to consider complaints about potential discrimination and data breaches.

Luton Borough Council (21 011 453)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit and council tax reduction matters. Mrs X has used her right to appeal against the main decisions so we cannot consider them. We cannot consider complaints about the management of social housing. It would be disproportionate to investigate points that are peripheral to those main points.

Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council (21 016 029)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has charged council tax on a property that has been removed from council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Islington (22 000 957)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not backdated his council tax exemption. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (22 000 966)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not backdated his council tax exemption. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Darlington Borough Council (22 001 047)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to pursue him for payment of outstanding council tax and not the other jointly liable person. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Dacorum Borough Council (21 010 905)

Summary: There was no administrative fault in the Council’s decision not to include children’s soft play centres in one of its COVID-19 business support schemes. Although the complainant opposes this decision, this does not give us grounds to uphold her complaint. We have therefore completed our investigation.

London Borough of Croydon (21 015 640)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell bailiffs that he had cleared his council tax liability. This resulted in an unnecessary call and visit by bailiffs. We found there was fault by the Council that warrants and apology and a payment to Mr X.

Lewes District Council (21 017 401)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is responsible for his late council tax reduction claim and loss of benefit. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice.

London Borough of Hackney (21 007 104)

Summary: Mr B says the Council told him it had placed his council tax account on hold but then obtained a liability order and referred his debt to the bailiffs and delayed responding to his complaint. There is no evidence the Council told Mr B placing the council tax account on hold would not prevent it securing a liability order and the Council delayed responding to the complaint. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

Salford City Council (21 018 123)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her application for a COVID-19 Test and Trace Support payment. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

North Norfolk District Council (21 018 515)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not waiving an additional council tax charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 018 875)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax bill as Ms X can appeal about it to the Valuation Tribunal if she considers the Council’s calculation is wrong. The Tribunal is best placed to make a determination on this matter.

London Borough of Brent (21 018 983)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint from a landlord because the Council has provided a fair remedy.

Birmingham City Council (21 018 994)

Birmingham City Council (21 018 994)

West Northamptonshire Council (22 000 226)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him a COVID-19 business grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Luton Borough Council (22 000 791)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s housing benefit claim as she had a right of appeal to the tribunal.

Sheffield City Council (21 018 971)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax support and single person’s discount. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.