IRRV Alert - week ending 27th January 2023
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. London Borough of Croydon (22 005 658)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about additional charges incurred due to the Council failing to set up a direct debit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Manchester City Council (22 011 721)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax court costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Northamptonshire Council (22 000 986)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about council tax support and his request for the Council to delete a case note. This is because it was reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal to challenge the Council’s decision on his council tax support award. In addition, the ICO is the more appropriate body to deal with his complaint about the Council’s refusal to delete a case note, and the alleged fault would not have caused any significant injustice. London Borough of Barnet (22 002 067)
Summary: Miss B complains the Council sent a Council Tax debt to its enforcement agents, despite not having contacted her about it for many years. It had not told her about the debt when she had earlier asked the Council about what she owed. The Ombudsman’s decision is that we should discontinue our investigation. This is because the Council has decided to write off the debt. Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (22 009 951)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. Miss X knew about the Council’s intention to recover the overpayment in 2018, and she could have complained sooner. London Borough of Islington (22 010 622)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond to an email. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy. Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 007 624)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused him the Local Restrictions Support Grant causing distress. We found fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommended the Council apologise, pay Mr X for time and trouble and remake its decision. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 010 490)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council discouraging Ms X from claiming council tax support and of poor administration of the council tax support process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, any injustice caused by potential fault is not significant enough to justify our involvement South Gloucestershire Council (22 012 224)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax banding as the complainant has already appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
