A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (18 015 129)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council advised him about a planning application and liability for Council Tax at his mother’s property and the annexe occupied by Mr X causing him to pay excessive Council Tax. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 016 806)

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council pursued him for council tax arears. Mr X said the Council instructed bailiffs without making adequate efforts to contact him first. The Council was at fault. It failed to identify Mr X’s new address on an enquiry form he submitted, and as a result Mr X incurred an avoidable enforcement fee of £235. The Council agreed to reimburse Mr X the £235 enforcement fee. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and time and trouble caused to him by its poor handling of his complaint.

Luton Borough Council (19 002 332)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council creating an overpayment on her council tax and housing benefit accounts. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and the independent benefits tribunal against the Council’s decisions.

London Borough of Bromley (18 018 348)

Summary: Miss X complains the Council took recovery action which resulted in her car being immobilised for a council tax debt she had already paid. The Council told Miss X the balance on her council tax account was nil but did not say there was still a warrant with the enforcement agents and that further action could be taken. Miss X incurred further costs when her car was clamped which she could have avoided if the Council had explained the situation fully. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X is agreed.

Derbyshire Dales District Council (19 002 337)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint relating to the payment of a debt for unpaid business rates. The courts are better placed to decide the matter.

London Borough of Newham (19 002 647)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been considered by the courts. There was also a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Southwark (19 002 707)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Maidstone Borough Council (19 002 935)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has used inaccurate figures to determine his housing benefit and council tax support. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation, the matter has been settled and there was a right of appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Harrow (18 016 224)

Summary: Miss B complains the Council has not applied a disability discount to her council tax bill. Miss B complains she is now in debt and this has negatively impacted her health. The Ombudsman found fault. The injustice caused by this this fault has been remedied by the Council. Miss B could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal about her council tax and council tax support.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 018 154)

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled a council tax exemption on an empty property. The Council did not apply or remove the exemption correctly which led to a delay in issuing a council tax bill. This caused Mrs X distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 in recognition of the confusion caused by its mistakes. It will also remind staff dealing with council tax enquiries about the circumstances in which the Valuation Office Agency may remove a property’s banding and ensure they are directing owners to the agency correctly.

Aylesbury Vale District Council (19 002 661)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Chorley Borough Council (19 002 726)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has charged him council tax for a period after he had moved out of his previous home. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Bedford Borough Council (19 003 010)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a temporary increase in the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Haringey (18 011 730)

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council considered his application for a discount or exemption for council tax, his offer of repayments and failed to respond to his correspondence. There was fault by the Council in its communication with Mr B but it has not caused him significant injustice.

Sheffield City Council (18 011 905)

Summary: Ms Y complained about Council errors in her benefits payments, which it then asked her to repay. She also complained about the Council’s poor communication about the issue. We uphold Ms Y’s complaint. The Council made errors in handling her council tax support and housing benefit claims. These caused Ms Y upset, confusion and inconvenience. To remedy this the Council have agreed to give Ms Y a clear statement of where her situation now stands and confirm it will not seek to recover the discretionary housing payment of £200.

Bournemouth Borough Council (18 017 884)

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided not to award a discretionary housing payment to Mr X.

Birmingham City Council (19 001 531)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about decisions by the Council on the complainant’s entitlement to housing benefit and council tax reduction. The complainant has a right of appeal to a tribunal against the Council’s decisions.

London Borough of Lambeth (19 002 191)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax bill. This is because Mr X has appealed to the tribunal. The complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 002 371)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this council tax complaint. This is because the complainant used his appeal rights and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.