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.

North Somerset Council (22 013 619)

Summary: Miss D complained how the Council handled her business rates account. She says the Council failed to respond to her emails, it wrote to an old address, and it failed to contact the other two owners with joint responsibility. We find the Council was at fault for failing to contact the other two owners at their contact address. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Wakefield City Council (22 016 753)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax empty homes premium because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Durham County Council (23 000 817)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated the complainant’s council tax. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because it is a late complaint.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 001 856)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute over liability for council tax. This is because liability disputes are best dealt with appeals to the Valuation Tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect the complainant to have done this.

London Borough of Islington (23 001 976)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s application for council tax support benefit. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to the specialist Benefits tribunal. And it is reasonable to expect her to appeal.

Torbay Council (22 014 130)

Summary: Mr X complains the council was wrong to send a council tax summons as he had paid for two properties. He also complains the council failed to take account of his disability as an autistic person. We have found fault by the council. It has agreed our recommended remedy.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 000 166)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery. The law prevents us considering some points. On other points, Mr X could reasonably use his right to go to court, or there is not enough evidence of fault, or the Information Commissioner is better placed than us. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 000 682)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Harrow (23 001 189)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax for a new build property. Any fault by the Council did not cause Miss X injustice.

Mendip District Council (22 014 667)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council decided to recover Council tax debt without taking account of Mr X’s disability, causing significant distress. We found the Council did not have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. We recommended it pays Miss X £200 for distress, pays Mr X £500 for distress and, evidences the actions taken to prevent recurrence.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 229)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax bills because the matter has been remedied.

Cheshire East Council (22 004 138)

Summary: Mr U complains about the Council’s council tax recovery action and that it has not listened to the difficulties his family suffered over the last year. He complains it also acted in a discriminatory manner. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was no fault by the Council.

London Borough of Hillingdon (22 014 559)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about business rates as Mrs X had the right to dispute her liability in court and it is reasonable to expect her to have done so.

Eastleigh Borough Council (22 015 835)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly charged him Council tax for a property that was not his. This caused enforcement action and significant distress to Mr X. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly consider the injustice of its actions when remedying the complaint.

Cherwell District Council (22 017 793)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr X was negatively impacted by incorrect information the Council gave to him about business rates. This is because we cannot directly link the injustice claimed by Mr X to Council fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Torbay Council (23 001 330)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to offer Mrs X support with her Council Tax arrears. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 615)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax reduction. The Valuation Tribunal considers appeals against decisions not to award disabled council tax reduction.

London Borough of Hackney (23 000 844)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delaying telling Mr X he had claimed the wrong benefit. The Council’s actions did not directly cause Mr X to lose out on the correct benefit.