A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Redcar & Cleveland Council (18 010 805)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it assessed her claim for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and Discretionary Housing Payment causing her distress. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and made a suitable payment to Ms X in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation.

Birmingham City Council (18 019 763)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about Council Tax arrears over several financial years, and how the Council has allocated the complainant’s payments towards them. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the matters now complained about.

Cherwell District Council (18 019 982)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her Council Tax account. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X has right of appeal to a Tribunal.

London Borough of Haringey (17 020 265)

Summary: Mr A complains the Council did not respond appropriately to his requests for help when his private tenancy was at risk. He complains the Council did not apply reasonable adjustments and this had a significant impact on his mental health. The Ombudsman’s finds there was fault by the Council. We consider the Council proposed a suitable remedy.

Bristol City Council (18 007 493)

Summary: Mr B says the Council was at fault for maladministration of council tax charges on his late wife’s house, for making unjustified charges for summonses to his daughter and wife and for a failure to provide information on council tax rules and charges. The Council has refunded court costs. It provided sufficient evidence of such costs to the court. However, it wrongly closed Mrs B’s council tax account. This was fault for which it has already apologised.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 015 059)

Summary: I have stopped investigating Mrs X’s complaint that the Council gave her incorrect benefits advice which meant she could not claim child tax credit. This is because the Council’s advice has not caused Mrs X an injustice and she can ask for reconsideration of her child tax credit claim.

Eastleigh Borough Council (18 019 486)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council demanding he pay Council Tax on an empty and unoccupied property he owns. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. Any dispute about Council Tax liability is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Ealing (18 016 374)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to recover an overpayment of housing benefit and hold her liable for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal and the Council has offered to meet her to discuss the matter.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (18 019 108)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this housing benefit complaint because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Derby City Council (18 019 564)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not respond to his complaint about a Council tax bill he had received. Subject to Mr X’s comments, the Ombudsman should not investigate because he has the right to appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. Further, the injustice Mr X experienced is not sufficient to warrant investigation.  

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 987)

Summary: Mr C complains that the Council pursued council tax enforcement, despite him providing information which showed his debt had not been calculated accurately. The Council was at fault in how it handled his appeal, and this led to extra costs being added to the debt. The Council has agreed for these costs to be removed and to offer a financial remedy to Mr C for his time and trouble.

Northumberland Council (18 019 451)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s home being removed from council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (18 019 699)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s enquiries about his liability for business rates. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the advice provided by the Council, and the Council has taken satisfactory action to address the delay in responding to the associated complaint.

Shropshire Council (18 018 875)

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s decision that she has been overpaid housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Ms B had appeal rights to a statutory tribunal she could have used which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 018 912)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the repayment rate for a housing benefit overpayment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Medway Council (18 019 830)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has placed the complainant’s home in the wrong council tax band and refused to lower it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Barnet (18 019 840)

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council is holding her organisation liable for business rates for a building which they have had to leave due to the failings of the landlord. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the courts.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (18 019 931)

Summary: Mr X disputes the Council’s decision to recover an overpayment of housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Wakefield City Council (19 000 259)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about his council tax banding. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), rather than the Council, has decided the banding for Mr B’s property. The Valuation Tribunal can consider an appeal against the banding the VOA has placed on Mr B’s property. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate a complaint about the VOA or the Valuation Tribunal.