IRRV Alert - week ending 14th October 2022
Information Letters
News
Reports
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. Manchester City Council (22 005 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not acting on information from the complainant in 2018 about her council tax. This is because the Council has provided a fair and proportionate response and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (22 006 281)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action taken by the Council for council tax arrears as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Brent (22 001 905)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to reduce the complainant’s council tax or extend a payment plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (22 002 622)
Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed in passing an appeal about a housing benefit overpayment to a tribunal. We upheld the complaint. We found there were potential grounds to delay the appeal. But this was a decision for the tribunal service to take, not the Council. Consequently, the Council’s actions caused Ms D uncertainty. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it agreed to remedy this injustice. Stroud District Council (22 003 913)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council only backdating a council tax rebate by three months. Ms X has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Ms X not to know about the rebate sooner. Part of the complaint is about a personnel matter, which we cannot consider. Westminster City Council (22 005 841)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant not receiving a council tax bill. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 006 171)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax account. It is unlikely we could conclude there was fault by the Council on some points. Matters related to the court action are outside our power. The Council has done enough to put matters right and we cannot achieve much of what Mr X wants. London Borough of Southwark (22 006 399)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax, council tax reduction and housing benefit. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to appeal to both the Valuation Tribunal and the Social Entitlement Chamber about the complaint. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (22 005 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to only provide discretionary energy rebate payment to individuals who received council tax support before, or on, 1 April 2022. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Reading Borough Council (22 005 606)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated Ms X’s housing benefit. This is because the alleged faults have not caused Ms X any significant injustice to justify an investigation. London Borough of Islington (22 005 723)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not backdating council tax reduction. This is because of the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Nottingham City Council (21 009 111)
Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complained about how the Council managed their council tax accounts. There was fault in how the Council provided information to Mr X and Mrs Y about their arrears, and how it responded to their complaint. This caused them avoidable frustration and confusion, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay them a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to provide clear information to Mr X and Mrs Y about their arrears. London Borough of Newham (22 004 570)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his business grant applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions. Westminster City Council (22 004 876)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s council tax support. That is because it has agreed to issue a letter to Ms X to enable her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and pay her £100 for any avoidable frustration caused. Southend-on-Sea City Council (22 005 917)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s application for council tax support as he can appeal against it to the Valuation Tribunal. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 000 125)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him a business grant causing financial loss. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making. London Borough of Haringey (22 005 536)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council does not do land registry checks before issuing council tax liability orders. This is because there is insufficient of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. West Devon Borough Council (22 006 639)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision on his liability for council tax. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. London Borough of Redbridge (22 005 757)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s queries about his council tax account. This is because there is insufficient evidence council fault caused Mr X significant injustice. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 018 558)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council should not have taken recovery action for council tax as she was unable to travel during lockdown to make payments. She also says the Council should have notified her by email that it was seeking a summons to give her the opportunity to pay. There is no evidence of fault in the Council taking recovery action or fault in how it notified Ms X that it was seeking a court summons. City of Wolverhampton Council (22 001 797)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in passing his tenants’ housing benefit appeals to the independent Tribunal. The Council was at fault for delay in sending the appeals to the Tribunal. This meant the tenants experienced a period of uncertainty. The Council has now made new decisions for which the tenants have a right of appeal. The Council has agreed to remind its staff they must forward appeals to the Tribunal promptly. London Borough of Merton (22 000 912)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether the complainant’s business was eligible for the business rates expanded retail discount. We have therefore completed our investigation. Birmingham City Council (22 001 017)
Summary: Ms B complained the Council twice wrongly refused her payments under the Test and Trace Support Payment Scheme, when she had to self-isolate from work in January 2022. We found fault in how the Council decided Ms B’s applications which caused her uncertainty. We considered that but for the fault, the applications may have succeeded. The Council accepts these findings and will review the applications as part of the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice, set out in full at the end of this statement. South Lakeland District Council (22 006 329)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery action against Mr X for council tax arrears. The complaint concerns the commencement of court proceedings and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X also complained about delay in dealing with his information request and this is a matter which falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 433)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Ms X’s housing benefit and council tax reduction claim. It was reasonable for her to appeal to the independent benefits tribunal to challenge the decision. We cannot investigate the Council’s action to obtain a liability order against Ms X for non-payment of council tax. We have no jurisdiction to challenge a decision made by the courts. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 007 059)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has wrongly decided his council tax liability. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 411)
Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Preston City Council (21 018 348)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way a bailiff company, acting on behalf of the Council, has treated him. We find the bailiffs failed to recognise Mr X’s vulnerability and find fault with its communication with Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, remove a compliance fee and make a further payment for the distress Mr X suffered and his time and trouble in making this complaint. London Borough of Ealing (21 018 085)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council tried to recover a rent arrears debt from 2016/17, over four years’ later and without any explanation or evidence. This has caused her significant distress and time and trouble trying to resolve it. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to write off the debt and check no other tenants have been affected in the same way.
|
