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.

Lincoln City Council (19 013 443)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the date from the which the Council held the complainant liable for council tax after her tenant moved out. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because the matter has been resolved.

Sheffield City Council (19 013 883)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculates council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Harrow (19 014 781)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his liability for council tax. This is because it would be reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Blackpool Borough Council (19 004 448)

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council, and enforcement agents who acted on the Council’s behalf, after it obtained a liability order against him for non-payment of business rates which he said he was not responsible for. The Council was not at fault. The magistrates’ court issued a liability order against Mr X for the debt, and the Council passed it to enforcement agents who carried out their role in line with the relevant law.

Birmingham City Council (19 013 145)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to suspend, then cancel her entitlement to housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

South Gloucestershire Council (19 013 928)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a Council Tax Benefit overpayment which arose in 2004. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal in 2006.

London Borough of Lambeth (19 014 026)

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to his council tax liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the substantive matter falls outside our jurisdiction as Mr B has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Redbridge (19 014 291)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not calculate the complainant’s housing benefit correctly. This is because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

London Borough of Haringey (19 013 201)

Summary: The Ombudsman should not pursue this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover overpaid benefits. Miss B had the right to appeal to a tribunal. The complaint is also late.

London Borough of Bexley (19 013 776)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his tenant’s rent liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because part of the complaint is out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Medway Council (19 016 018)

Summary: Mrs X complains she was caused stress and inconvenience when the Council wrongly passed her personal data to a third party. The Ombudsman will not investigate as this is a complaint for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Coventry City Council (19 013 621)

Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint about bailiffs seeking to execute an arrest warrant issued by a magistrates’ court.

Cheltenham Borough Council (19 013 965)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not provide information about the council tax premium for empty homes. This is because the Council has provided a remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. In addition, the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she thinks the Council has failed to apply the premium correctly.

Manchester City Council (19 016 455)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council will not award a council tax discount on her second home as we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

London Borough of Hillingdon (18 014 776)

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Ms Y’s complaint of the Council delaying dealing with her claims for housing benefit and council tax reduction. The Council requested further information from her before it could process them. Her complaint about it assessing their income, and its decision to end their claims, are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as she had a right to appeal them to a statutory tribunal.

London Borough of Haringey (19 008 928)

Summary: There was fault by the Council, which wrongly applied a discount to the complainant’s Council Tax bill. This meant the complainant received an unexpected bill after believing she had paid the full amount, which is an injustice. The Council has agreed to offer her a financial remedy to recognise this injustice.

London Borough of Merton (19 013 215)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not send him a Council tax demand for a property he let until he received a Liability Order. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a legal remedy.