A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

London Borough of Bexley (19 000 037)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to give him council tax benefit before April 2018 and therefore caused a debt. The complaint is outside jurisdiction because Mr X complains late. There is no reason to consider the complaint further.

Eastleigh Borough Council (19 002 614)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax payments. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council and the complainant has not been caused any significant injustice.

London Borough of Barnet (19 007 924)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not granting a council tax exemption. There is no evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant has a right of appeal to a tribunal against the Council’s decision.

Sheffield City Council (19 008 944)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not dealt with his Subject Access Request (SAR) properly and he is unhappy with the Council’s decision to recover an overpayment of benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the SAR is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office and he appealed against the overpayment recovery decision to a tribunal.

London Borough of Bromley (19 009 338)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council unreasonably used bailiffs to enforce a council tax debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Salford City Council (19 009 346)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council has held her liable for full council tax despite her low income as a trainee doctor. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to Valuation Tribunal for any dispute about liability or council tax support.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 009 377)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears caused by the Post Office not passing on the full council tax payment to the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Ombudsman cannot investigate the Post Office.

Leicester City Council (18 016 795)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council is at fault in withdrawing to single person discount from his council tax liability. This is because it would be reasonable for him to use his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

South Gloucestershire Council (18 002 161)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was at fault because it pursued recovery of council tax and business rates. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation because the complaint is late, and Mr X had alternative remedies he could have used.

London Borough of Lewisham (18 019 301)

Summary: Miss C complains about the contact arrangements for the Council’s housing benefit team and the move to online contact. The Ombudsman has found fault with one part of the Council’s administration of Miss C’s claim. But this did not lead to a significant injustice.

Westminster City Council (19 002 564)

Summary: Mr K, a letting agent, complains the Council unfairly pursued recovery of council tax from his tenants when it should have applied a student exemption. The Ombudsman finds there is no evidence of fault by the Council or its agent.

Manchester City Council (19 004 366)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to instruct bailiffs to recover a council tax debt. This meant Ms X had to pay bailiff fees on top of the council tax debt. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

London Borough of Newham (19 004 437)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council continues to pursue him for a council tax debt owed by this father as they have the same name. The Council accepts it did not take the action it said it would when Mr X first contacted it about this and as a result has caused further distress to Mr X. It has now written off the debt and offered a suitable remedy for the distress caused.

London Borough of Camden (19 006 529)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about a council tax exemption and housing repairs. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault because Mr X needs to supply information it has requested about his situation. The history of the council tax account, and the housing repair complaint, is outside our jurisdiction.

Birmingham City Council (19 009 138)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about council tax liability. The complaint is outside his legal remit as Ms X can appeal against the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Hounslow (18 018 799)

Summary: Mr D complains about the way the Council has dealt with his council tax account since 2017. The Council made an error in November 2017 for which it has already apologised. The Ombudsman has found no further fault.

Horsham District Council (19 002 750)

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

London Borough of Barnet (19 010 092)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the rateable value of his property and the level of business rates he must pay. This is because the matter does not concern an administrative function of the Council.

Birmingham City Council (18 006 855)

Summary: Miss X complains about benefits decisions the Council took that led to an overpayment of housing benefit. There was some fault by the Council and issues with its communication with Miss X. This led to some confusion. As a result, Miss X doubts her housing benefit payments have been correct and they may not have been correctly applied to her rent account. The Council agreed to make a payment to Miss X to recognise the time and trouble she spent pursuing the complaint. It agreed to re-examine and explain the decisions it made and correct any errors it found.

London Borough of Brent (18 011 545)

Summary: Ms C says the Council maliciously recalculated her housing benefit entitlement, then recovered an overpayment without warning and at too high a weekly rate. Ms C has a right of appeal to the Tribunal so we cannot look at the calculation of benefit paid. The Council was not malicious but did delay in dealing with her requests which was fault causing injustice. However, the Council paid her several sums in recognition of fault and has employed more staff which has reduced delays. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes no further recommendations to remedy the fault.

Vale of White Horse District Council (19 008 397)

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

Wakefield City Council (19 008 522)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge extra council tax on an empty property the complainant owns. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, decisions about the setting of council tax can only be challenged in court.