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.

Canterbury City Council (23 000 337)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council made many administrative errors in handling her Council Tax Support. We have ended our investigation of this complaint because the Council offered a suitable remedy for the fault and injustice experienced. Further investigation would not result in a different outcome.

London Borough of Barnet (23 002 505)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery action. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the Council has provided an appropriate response.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 002 826)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the collection of council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the arrears have been confirmed in court.

London Borough of Southwark (22 015 837)

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her application for a test and trace support payment. There were avoidable delays in how the Council decided Ms X’s application and how it responded to her complaint. This caused avoidable distress and frustration to Ms X for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

London Borough of Ealing (23 000 022)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public money to investigate how the Council dealt with Ms Y’s complaint.

Northumberland County Council (22 016 389)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not refer her to the Valuations Office Agency meaning she missed out on business grants and, it delayed in communications. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it pays Mrs X £150 for time and trouble.

Chichester District Council (23 001 493)

Summary: We cannot investigate this council tax complaint because the matters have been considered in court and the complainant could have appealed to the High Court.

Sunderland City Council (23 001 804)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund costs the complainant incurred before his property was moved to a lower council tax band. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

West Northamptonshire Council (22 016 330)

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council made a series of mistakes when it processed an application she made for her business to receive an Additional Restrictions Grant in January 2022. We upheld the complaint finding the Council sent a series of inadequate and inaccurate messages to Mrs C before closing her application. We found that but for the fault in those communications, the application may have succeeded. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed recommendations to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement. The Council has also agreed to take action to identify others similarly affected by the mistakes identified in this case.

London Borough of Croydon (23 000 416)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way a Council officer spoke to her in a phone call as we cannot investigate satisfactorily where there is no recording. Her complaint about her Council tax reduction could be appealed to a tribunal. She can further obtain information via the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 227)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax exemptions as the matter has been remedied and there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 003 649)

Summary: Mr X says the Council is trying to charge him council tax for a property that was unhabitable in 2019. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it has been made late outside of our usual time period for accepting complaints and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 002 054)

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

Herefordshire Council (23 003 546)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant being sent a bill for Council tax. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

London Borough of Barnet (22 018 060)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax matters. There is not enough remaining injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint or asking the Council for a payment. Investigation is unlikely to achieve anything significant.

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (23 002 410)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misgendering because it is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now.

West Oxfordshire District Council (23 003 481)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to compensate Mr X for seven months’ loss of earnings amidst a council tax dispute which Mr X successfully appealed via the Valuation Tribunal. The matter is best considered by the courts.