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 (22 010 101)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a Council tax debt because there is no evidence of Council fault causing injustice and the matter has been remedied.

Nottingham City Council (22 013 152)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments because the matter has been remedied and liability for the earlier debts could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and are so out of jurisdiction and out of time.

London Borough of Barnet (22 013 404)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the change of tenancy liability for Council tax because the matter has been remedied and there are no grounds to warrant investigation.

Pendle Borough Council (22 011 880)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council billed the complainant for council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

London Borough of Enfield (22 012 536)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax dispute regarding liability for a property the complainant rents to tenants. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal once he has provided additional information to the Council.

London Borough of Croydon (22 013 159)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of Council tax as there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Dorset Council (22 003 517)

Summary: There is no evidence to show the Council provided information to Mr X about additional hardship support grants available during COVID-19 pandemic despite saying it would. This fault meant Mr X did not apply for a discretionary housing payment in 2020 when he was in receipt of universal credit, possibly losing out on money he was entitled to. A suitable remedy is agreed for the injustice caused.

Test Valley Borough Council (22 012 798)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing her client a revised business rates demand. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Miss X’s client injustice.

Westminster City Council (22 013 511)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council holding Mr X liable for council tax. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Watford Borough Council (22 012 664)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council mistakenly cancelling Mr X’s council tax direct debit. At my invitation, the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Peterborough City Council (22 013 023)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax account as any injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (22 014 113)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council illegally accessed the complainant’s bank account in October 2021. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is a late complaint.

Bracknell Forest Council (21 018 804)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to allow him to attend a liability hearing for a council tax debt and as such, failed to meet its duties under the Equality Act 2010. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Milton Keynes Council (22 009 820)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council applied a council tax discount. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the discount has now been reinstated so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate how the Council managed the complainant’s tenancy because this relates to the Council’s role as a social housing provider.

Somerset West and Taunton Council (22 010 183)

Summary: Mrs X complained bailiffs acting for the Council requested a monthly payment which was not affordable, for unpaid council tax She said her vulnerability had not been properly considered. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the action taken by the bailiffs, acting on behalf of the Council.

Brighton & Hove City Council (22 011 958)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax for a former student. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 012 491)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax charged on an empty property. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Brighton & Hove City Council (22 012 524)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not allow the complainant to pay a reduced amount of council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the court confirmed the complainant must pay as billed.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 012 742)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the complainant an empty property council tax on a second property he owns. This is because the complainant can use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he considers the Council has wrongly applied its policy.

London Borough of Lambeth (22 012 914)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of housing benefit because she could appeal to a tribunal. Her complaint about her rental agreement is out of jurisdiction as it is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.

Northumberland County Council (22 013 027)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council treating Mr X as liable for council tax. We cannot consider matters that have been before the courts, so we cannot investigate the Council having obtained liability orders from the magistrates’ court. It is reasonable for Mr X to use the alternative remedy available to him via the Valuation Tribunal, to challenge decisions about liability.