A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Please note: our decisions are published three months 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.

London Borough of Ealing (18 010 043)

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s actions in respect of recovering council tax arrears and housing benefit overpayments. He also complained about events when he was made homeless. We are unable to investigate the issues raised as Mr B had a right of appeal to tribunals about both matters. We are also unable to find fault in the way the Council has tried to recover the debts. The events leading to his homelessness are too old to investigate now.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 006 231)

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of enforcement agents working on behalf of the Council. We have found fault. The Council has agreed a satisfactory remedy.

London Borough of Haringey (19 008 341)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council taking recovery action against him for unpaid council tax which he says he should not be liable for. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for him to challenge his liability for Council tax by appealing to the Valuation Tribunal which is the proper authority to consider such matters.

Dartford Borough Council (19 012 038)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council threatened her with homelessness. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there was a right of appeal against any decision to restrict her housing benefit.

London Borough of Hackney (19 012 076)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to correspond properly with her and she was overpaid housing benefit as a result. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this can be appealed to a tribunal.

Bracknell Forest Council (19 012 425)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Basildon Borough Council (19 012 516)

Summary: Mr X complains about liability issues relating to Council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and the matter is out of time.

Birmingham City Council (19 012 760)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council unreasonably delayed making her an extended payment of housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

London Borough of Merton (19 012 796)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of unpaid council tax. This is because if Miss X disputed liability it was reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.

London Borough of Lambeth (19 012 999)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax arrears and the amount of a refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has agreed to pay an additional sum to the complainant.

Northampton Borough Council (19 013 205)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about costs incurred for council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

South Hams District Council (19 005 785)

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council did not properly deal with a complaint about his Council Tax. The Council was at fault because it did not follow its Corporate Debt Policy. Mr B lost an opportunity to prevent the debt being passed to enforcement agents. The Council has agreed to bring Mr B’s debt back to the Council, refund Mr B any enforcement agents charges to date, agree a repayment strategy and review its policy.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 152)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision it could not refund the complainant an overpayment of Council Tax. This is because she was not named on the tax bill during the relevant period. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation.

London Borough of Croydon (19 007 934)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to charge additional “empty homes” council tax premium to her property and how the Council has treated her generally over this issue. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because Ms X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Ombudsman will not investigate the other related complaint about the conduct of officers because he is not investigating the underlying matter.

London Borough of Havering (19 008 338)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council reduced his Housing Benefit and then refused on several occasions to pass his case to the Tribunal when he appealed. Mr X said this caused him and his family frustration and distress. The Council was at fault and has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him a financial payment and review its procedures.

Wolverhampton City Council (19 009 773)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax on a property owned by the complainant. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council has caused the complainant injustice. Further, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 013)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with council tax for a property owned by the complainant’s late mother. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant injustice that would justify his involvement.

London Borough of Lambeth (19 012 767)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in making a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

London Borough of Croydon (19 013 084)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about liability for council tax. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Norwich City Council (19 013 021)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council is at fault in deciding that it has overpaid housing benefit and in recovering it from him. This is because Mr A may appeal to a tribunal and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

Dover District Council (19 011 552)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of a business rates debt. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge the rateable value of the property.

Leeds City Council (19 012 624)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about enforcement agents obtaining money from his partner for a council tax account he is liable for. The Council has refunded the money paid and it is unlikely we can add to this. Mr X’s complaint about data privacy should be made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 014 857)

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

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 718)

Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with his council tax account and says he had to pay a large sum to release his clamped car and spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council as it failed to tell Mr C about his right of appeal or respond to his complaint. However, the Ombudsman considers the agreed actions of an apology, £100 and the Council to consider Mr C’s information to reach a new decision on his liability with an associated right of appeal provide a suitable remedy.