IRRV Alert - week ending 14th July 2023
News
Consultations
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. Westminster City Council (22 013 781)
Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council and its Enforcement Agent in recovering outstanding business rates, stating they were unreasonable. He said he did not receive prior notices about the debt or told what action would be taken. We do not find fault with the actions the Council took to recover the money or the conduct of the Enforcement Agent who visited Mr X’s company. There was fault for how it incorrectly calculated its fees which were added to the outstanding amount. The Council has refunded the difference which remedies the injustice to Mr X. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 001 652)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there was a right of appeal to a tribunal. Birmingham City Council (22 011 293)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has repeatedly suspended and changed her entitlements to Housing Benefits and Council Tax Support. Ms X also complained the Council has delayed in handling her appeals which has prevented her from approaching the relevant tribunals. We found fault with the Council for delays in registering her Housing Benefits appeal with the tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 for the inconvenience and frustration caused. Southend-on-Sea City Council (22 012 210)
Summary: Mr X was liable for business rates from June 2019 to March 2021 but the Council delayed and did not bill Mr X until November 2021. There was fault by the Council in failing to contact Mr X directly after receiving his contact details but there is no evidence Mr X ever contacted the Council himself and so the injustice claimed was not as a direct result of the Council’s fault. Leicester City Council (22 015 696)
Summary: We found fault on Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s use of enforcement agents. Its failures to act on a notification by the Valuation Tribunal about a hearing, and a further failure to provide it with full documentation, led to the delay of the hearing by 8 months. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. North Norfolk District Council (23 001 934)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding as they can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Leeds City Council (23 001 952)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability, and the Council’s response to Mr X’s contact about it, as the liability issue is best dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Eastleigh Borough Council (22 012 357)
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 specialist Valuation Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal. North Norfolk District Council (22 017 150)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax charge and that it lied regarding speaking to the previous property owner’s family. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service. In addition, any potential fault by the Council has not caused any significant injustice. Bristol City Council (23 001 394)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council should not pursue him for unpaid business rates over periods of national lockdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 000 484)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council should waive some council tax because of the principle of estoppel. This is because the complainant can raise a defence in court or appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he thinks he remained entitled to the single person discount. Slough Borough Council (23 001 093)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the council tax charge for 2023/24 and changes to the refuse collection service. This is because we cannot investigate an issue that affects most of the residents in a council area and we cannot alter the amount of council tax that is set each year.
|
