A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Bath and North East Somerset Council (19 003 293)

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider whether she might be a ‘legacy benefits applicant’ when advising her to apply for Universal Credit. The Council says it advised the complainant to seek Universal Credit to help with her financial circumstances and told her about the advice services it offers so she could gain further advice. The complainant did not share any further information about her circumstances but applied for Universal Credit and lost her tax credit entitlement. This led to her being financially worse off. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in giving general advice and offering further advice through its advice centre which offers a ‘better off’ calculation when checking a person’s financial circumstances.

Manchester City Council (19 003 322)

Summary: Mrs B complains about delay by the Council in recovering unpaid council tax. Mrs B received a visit from enforcement agents in April 2019 recovering unpaid council tax from 2008/9. Mrs B says she was unaware of the debt and now, because of the delay, has no way of proving that she paid. There was delay by the Council in pursuing recovery action for unpaid council tax. To remedy the injustice to Mrs B the Council will pay her the sum she paid for the period after she moved out of the property.

Reading Borough Council (19 003 690)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to decline his application for discretionary council tax support payment. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal which is the proper authority to consider council tax support payment decisions.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 004 858)

Summary: Ms C complains about failings by the Council in its administration of claims she made for housing benefit and council tax support. We uphold the complaint finding the Council lost evidence provided by Ms C, delayed in reviewing her case and failed to take account of its own policy for recovering council tax. These faults caused Ms C distress and put her to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (19 005 462)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to recover council tax back to 2017 following a change in the valuation of her property by the Valuation Office Agency. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about her liability for council tax.

Dover District Council (19 005 966)

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council refused her application for a discretionary housing payment. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council considered Ms B’s application. In these circumstances, there are no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision not to make a payment.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 006 427)

Summary: Mr X complained about receiving a summons for non- payment of council tax which he disputes. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (19 006 739)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed recovering business rates incurred in 2005-06. The Council agreed to waive the debt. Therefore, I discontinued my investigation.

Salford City Council (19 011 358)

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council handled matters relating to the council tax charge for a property he has been renovating. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Leeds City Council (19 011 823)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax bill for an empty property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and if Mr X disputes liability, it is reasonable for him to appeal to the tribunal.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 011 913)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in sending his appeal, against its decision to recover a housing benefit overpayment, to the Social Security Tribunal. The complaint cannot be investigated because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 004 303)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council took recovery action for a council tax debt he was not aware of and pursued him for historical debts he was not aware of. The Council was not at fault for the way it recovered the council tax debts

London Borough of Havering (19 010 299)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not grant a council tax exemption. The complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision.

Bristol City Council (19 004 237)

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to tell him about a small business rate relief review, failed to send him reminders before escalating the case to enforcement agents and unreasonably refused to remove the enforcement agent charge when he remains entitled to small business rates relief. There is no fault in how the Council handled the case.

Medway Council (19 004 681)

Summary: Miss B complains the Council transferred payments she made in 2016 to her council tax rather than her housing benefit account. Miss B complains that because of this error, her housing benefit overpayment was not cleared, and the Council is now chasing payment. During the investigation, the Council accepted it did not follow its procedure and has offered to write off the outstanding debt.

Leicester City Council (19 006 917)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to stop its welfare rights service assisting with appeals. There is no evidence of fault in the process leading to the decision. While Mrs X disagrees with the decision, she has not been directly disadvantaged as she was offered a referral but she chose to deal with her appeal herself.

Eastleigh Borough Council (19 010 217)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax bill for an empty property. This is because if he disputes liability it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the tribunal.

Brighton & Hove City Council (19 010 637)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her housing benefit claim. This is because Ms X has appealed to the tribunal and so the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 886)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his council tax payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has remedied the matter to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction.

London Borough of Bexley (19 010 430)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council has imposed a 100% council tax charge on her late mother’s property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 010 546)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably served a summons on him for unpaid council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Bristol City Council (19 010 638)

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

North Devon District Council (19 010 807)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably obtained a Liability Order against him for non payment of council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Ealing (19 001 682)

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider her claims for housing benefit, council tax support and welfare assistance. The Council says it acted on information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions although it accepts it delayed its review of a housing benefit overpayment. The Ombudsman finds fault for that delay and recommends a remedy.

Leicester City Council (19 004 264)

Summary: Mr X complains about the delay by the Council in paying housing benefit directly to him. He also says he was misadvised about the reimbursement of rent arrears. The Ombudsman found there was delay by the Council in processing the payment. The Council has offered a financial remedy for the injustice this caused Mr X.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 010 002)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover a 2014 benefit overpayment from him. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and the availability of appeal rights against the overpayment decision.