|
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 Harrow (22 011 059)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the complainant has a right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it is reasonable to expect her to use that right.
Bracknell Forest Council (22 011 068)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax banding being wrongly increased. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.
City of Wolverhampton Council (22 011 086)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax bill as it has been remedied.
Chichester District Council (22 011 887)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a court order obtained by the Council against Mr X as he has a right of appeal.
Rochford District Council (22 011 844)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to go to the Valuation Tribunal.
Eastbourne Borough Council (21 018 393)
Summary: Mr K complains on behalf of Ms R about the Council’s decision to waive an outstanding balance in relation to an overpayment in housing benefit, instead of paying the amount directly to her. Mr K says that at the time the Council decided to waive the overpayment amount due to alleged service failings, Ms R had already paid this in full. While the Council’s decision to waive the overpayment amount in 2020 is a matter we would normally be able to consider, it would require investigation of matters which date back to 2004. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical complaints. Given the passage of time, we do not consider we could reach a robust and reliable decision in Ms R’s case. We are therefore discontinuing our investigation in relation to this complaint.
London Borough of Enfield (22 010 604)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has unreasonably enforced a Council tax debt against him and failed to respond to a Freedom of Information request. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied and he has a further right of complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Gedling Borough Council (22 012 097)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Hounslow (22 012 347)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Merton (22 011 270)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error by the Council which led to it wrongly issuing a court summons for unpaid council tax. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy.
Reading Borough Council (22 002 730)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her with COVID-19 funding, causing financial loss and distress. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making but we found fault because its published policy was not clear. We recommended the Council provide Ms X with an apology and £100 for distress and uncertainty.
London Borough of Lewisham (22 003 621)
Summary: We found no fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about the way it recently pursued her for unpaid council tax dating back to 2008/9. The Council was entitled to pursue her for the debt, despite the amount of time that passed. Enforcement agents initially wrote to her, inviting her to make contact and arrange repayment, before visiting her.
Slough Borough Council (22 003 967)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly pursuing Mrs Y for housing benefit overpayments. That is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
Bristol City Council (22 007 153)
Summary: We found no fault on Ms J’s complaint that the Council failed to adjust her council tax account for 2021/22 even though she no longer received universal credit and had queried its bills stating she had nothing to pay. She signed a statement about the need to declare change of circumstances, information about this was on bills received and the Council’s website, and an officer referred to her receiving a discount because of universal credit during a call with her. She did not tell the Council she no longer received it.
North Somerset Council (22 009 933)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Islington (22 011 445)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 self-isolation payment. This is because the matter falls outside our jurisdiction. Mr X has commenced court proceedings against the Council and the law does not allow us to consider an issue Mr X has previously asked the court to consider.
London Borough of Islington (22 011 584)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his COVID-19 retail, hospitality and leisure grant application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Cherwell District Council (22 011 738)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because the problem has been resolved. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
