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.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 948)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s former employment with the Council. This is because the law prevents us from investigating employment related complaints. We will not investigate the complaint about council tax and council tax reduction because the Council has proposed a fair remedy.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 514)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the Valuation Office Agency and the Valuation Tribunal are better placed to deal with the complaint.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 934)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed issuing a council tax bill and then made unreasonable demands for payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 014 404)

Summary: Mr X complained that Council delays meant he missed out on a COVID-19 business grant. The Council was at fault for delays in dealing with the business rates registration, for which it has apologised. The Council has also paid a sum equivalent to the grant Mr X missed out on, which provides an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 002 833)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to determine a council tax request as the matter has been remedied and there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Eastbourne Borough Council (22 003 174)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of access to Ms X’s council tax account because it has been remedied.

London Borough of Harrow (22 003 276)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to Ms X’s council tax. It is unlikely we would criticise the Council’s decision not to allow Ms X to pay on a different day of the month, or the Council’s decision to take recovery action. Other parts of the complaint have not completed the Council’s complaint procedure.

London Borough of Barnet (22 003 653)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a landlord being made liable for a council tax bill when it should be the tenant who is liable. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal against the bill at the Valuation Tribunal.

Cherwell District Council (21 012 667)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action for historic council tax arrears and the handling of her vulnerability as a debtor. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision to pursue the historic debts. However, we have found fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s vulnerability as a debtor. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, review Ms X’s case with the bailiffs and make a service improvement.

London Borough of Brent (22 000 143)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging a 2-year underpayment of Housing Benefit. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to the specialist Housing Benefit tribunal. And it is reasonable to expect her to use this appeal right.

Epping Forest District Council (22 003 321)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Haringey (21 015 824)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed deciding on his eligibility for business rates’ relief resulting in his missing out on a business grant. We found fault in the Council’s actions causing Mr X injustice. We recommended the Council apologise to Mr X, pay him £300 for time and trouble, £300 for distress and uncertainty and, £10,000 in lieu of the grant. Further, that it acts to prevent recurrence.

Manchester City Council (21 016 865)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused his business a Restart Grant and retail rates relief, causing financial loss. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 017 995)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered a sports club’s application to the Omicron Hospitality and Leisure Grant scheme. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Broxtowe Borough Council (22 002 932)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing the complainant’s council tax discount in 2013. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (22 003 503)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s enforcement agent continues to pursue him for a council tax debt and the Council refuses to cancel all or most of the debt. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. There is no fault in the Council’s request to Mr X that he supplies a financial form so it can assess his current ability to pay. The Council will also assess any application by Mr X for council tax relief or an exemption.