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.

Cannock Chase District Council (22 002 386)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal and the Council is still investigating the matter.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 003 316)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about overpayment of housing benefit. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal against this charge at the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (22 011 544)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has decided to recover overpayments of housing benefit. Mr X has or had a right of appeal to the Social Security Tribunal which it was reasonable for him to use.

Arun District Council (22 012 293)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s billing for non-domestic (business) rates relating to a beach hut. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Burnley Borough Council (22 012 467)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not remove the complainant’s property from council tax and issue a refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Maidstone Borough Council (22 012 564)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of Council tax support because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 552)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s council tax is wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Portsmouth City Council (22 013 333)

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.

Northumberland County Council (22 006 688)

Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to publish the discretionary energy rebate scheme in a timely manner. She also said it provided her with misleading information and its complaints handling and communication was poor. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Mrs F and its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Leeds City Council (22 010 439)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints in 2019. This is because we previously decided we would not investigate the substantive matters which led to Mr X’s complaint to the Council. Therefore, we will not now investigate a complaint about the Council’s handling of the complaint. Had we not declined to investigate for that reason, we would have declined to investigate because Mr X’s complaint is inextricably linked to matters which we have already considered and is late.

Torbay Council (22 011 801)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in a council tax refund cheque being paid. This has now been processed and this is the outcome the complainant sought.

Harborough District Council (22 013 138)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it concerns his liability for council tax. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 319)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council ignored her request for a business grant causing financial loss and distress. We found the Council at fault. We were satisfied with its apology and grant payment. We recommended it pay Mrs X £300 for distress and uncertainty and £200 for time and trouble. Further, that it act to prevent recurrence.

Thurrock Council (22 011 011)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council reducing Mr X’s council tax then demanding repayment of the reduction. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Part of the complaint is about events during court proceedings, which the law prevents us investigating.

Leicester City Council (22 002 092)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council handled the recovery of overpaid housing benefit from Mr X.

London Borough of Croydon (22 011 613)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Miss X’s council tax liability. Some of her council tax arrears are subject to liability orders issued by the courts, which we cannot investigate. The Valuation Tribunal Service deals with appeals about council tax liability, and it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal the Council’s decisions.

Chorley Borough Council (22 011 764)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about costs incurred by Mr X’s company in connection with a court hearing for business rates arrears as the Council has offered a financial payment which remedies the injustice caused.

Charnwood Borough Council (22 011 886)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council gave incorrect information to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which caused difficulties with his Universal Credit entitlement. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Liverpool City Council (22 012 095)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly apply a council tax discount to the complainant’s account. This is because it is reasonable to appeal against the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (22 012 101)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his test and trace support payment application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Buckinghamshire Council (22 012 422)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability and the amount of Council tax payable on a property because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.