IRRV Alert - week ending 19th August 2022
News
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
|
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. Wiltshire Council (21 002 027)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to fully consider his circumstances when he claimed a Discretionary Housing Payment. There was fault in the Council’s communications and in its consideration of his backdate request. We recommended a remedy. London Borough of Newham (21 017 853)
Summary: There is no evidence that Mr X contacted the Council to agree a payment arrangement before the case was passed to enforcement agents for recovery. There is no evidence of fault in the actions of the enforcement agents and so the fees incurred are correctly owed. Maidstone Borough Council (22 003 748)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the administration of Mr G’s council tax account from 2014 to 2019. The complaint is late and there is no good reason he could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. The Council has provided a clear response on what happened, and the passage of time means we could not likely investigate to add anything worthwhile to the result. It would also have been reasonable for Mr G to appeal to a tribunal against any council tax demand he disagreed with. Canterbury City Council (22 004 485)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in holding properties liable for council tax because the matter affects all or most of the population of the area. Somerset West and Taunton Council (22 003 539)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding Mr X pay historic business rates. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on balance that the Council was wrong to say it had got liability orders, or that its calculations of the unpaid rates are wrong. The Council has done enough to recognise Mr X’s alarm and distress from related matters. Mr X can go to court if he wants any liability orders put aside. Erewash Borough Council (22 004 298)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax banding as this is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency, a body out of jurisdiction. London Borough of Haringey (22 004 300)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax discounts as this can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 018 937)
Summary: The Council has already reconsidered and approved the complainant’s application to the test and trace support payment scheme. As this matter is now resolved we have discontinued our investigation. London Borough of Hounslow (22 004 023)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to bill him for council tax from 2010. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Charnwood Borough Council (22 004 243)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exemption from council tax as this can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. London Borough of Croydon (21 014 094)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to notify her of Council Tax arrears and subsequent enforcement action. We have not found the Council to be at fault because it contacted Miss X at her last known address.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to take account of domestic violence when deciding her discretionary housing payment claim. We have completed our investigation because while there was fault by the Council, it did not cause Mrs X injustice. London Borough of Haringey (22 003 531)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr X a council tax exemption sooner. The complaint is late. Also, Mr X could reasonably have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. Mendip District Council (22 003 595)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly pursuing Mr X for council tax he did not owe. This is because the Council has proposed a suitable remedy and any remaining injustice to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Lewisham (22 003 732)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council enforcing a liability order for a council tax bill from more than 15 years ago. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice in the Council seeking payment of a debt under a liability order the complainant knew of at the time and which she was responsible for paying, so the matter does not warrant investigation.
|
