IRRV Alert - week ending 4th November 2022 Part 1
Information Letters
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. Manchester City Council (22 006 767)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in contacting the Valuation Office Agency to bring his business premises into the rating list. This is because the Council’s delay did not cause Mr X significant injustice. Eastleigh Borough Council (22 007 020)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not eligible for the £150 energy rebate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Chorley Borough Council (22 007 172)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not eligible for the £150 energy rebate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Lincolnshire Council (21 019 054)
Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council responded to his application for council tax exemptions. We found the Council delayed in responding to his queries about two exemptions, then raised his expectations he would receive an exemption and refund, only to change its mind two months later. It exacerbated the fault by failing to inform him of this decision for a further two months. It also left a case with the bailiffs for too long the following year and failed to recognise the impact its failures had on Mr B’s ability to pay the debt. The Council has agreed to write off £65 costs, pay Mr B £500 and review its communication and recording systems for the future. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 936)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in notifying the complainant that his council tax reduction had ended. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because the impact is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Manchester City Council (22 007 386)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for council tax. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings and could be considered by a tribunal. Leicester City Council (22 000 387)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to pay him a Small Business Grant causing financial difficulties. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making that affected the outcome, but we found fault in its communications. We recommended the Council provide an apology to Mr X, pay him £300 for distress and uncertainty, £100 for time and trouble and act to prevent recurrence. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (22 005 631)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council calculated Mr X’s council tax support. That is because the Valuation Tribunal is best placed to consider complaints about council tax. Spelthorne Borough Council (22 007 388)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax band. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
|
