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.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 521)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council went back on agreement to give him a 100 percent discount on a council tax bill while his property was being refurbished. I have found the Council at fault. I am unable to make a finding as to what agreement was reached. However, I have found the Council should been clearer with Mr X about the terms of which discount was granted. I have also found that the Council should have told Mr X he could have appealed the Council’s decision about his discount to the Valuation Tribunal. I have made a recommendation the Council review its policy.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (19 004 750)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault as it sent enforcement agents to his rental property after he paid the outstanding Council Tax owed. We found fault because the Council did not tell the enforcement agents Mr X had paid the debt. But this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

London Borough of Bromley (19 006 570)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to award discretionary housing payment or properly considered her tenancy. We will not investigate the Council’s discretionary housing payment decision as this happened too long ago. There is no good reason to exercise discretion. It made a mistake in calculating her housing benefit, has apologised and made the correct payment, appropriately remedying injustice. It has tried to respond to her concerns about her tenancy agreement which are for the Housing Ombudsman

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 594)

Summary: Mr X complains a decision the Council took on business rates liability resulted in deductions from his personal pension plan by the company that manages it. There was no fault in the Council’s decision who to bill for the business rates applying to the storage units held as part of Mr X’s pension fund. It took a decision it was entitled to take. There was fault in the time the Council took to reach a settled position which caused injustice to Mr X, but the Council has already remedied this by apologising and making a payment to Mr X.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 007 565)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued him for business rates. The Council sent Mr X court summons in 2016 without fault. Given the passage of time we will not investigate the circumstances of the issue of summons further. The Court determines liability orders. The Ombudsman cannot question its decisions.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council (19 008 702)

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to refund a direct debit payment taking in error from his bank account. We cannot find fault with the actions of the Council and suggest Mr B complains to his bank.

London Borough of Enfield (19 011 966)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about liability for council tax. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service and he has also not been caused any significant injustice.

Warwick District Council (19 013 465)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is charging him too much council tax and has passed his account to enforcement agents. This is because there is no indication of fault by the Council and it has put a hold on enforcement action to allow Mr X to make a payment arrangement.

Reading Borough Council (19 015 040)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a demand for council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Mr X personal injustice.

Aylesbury Vale District Council (19 013 753)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not issued correct Council tax bills. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided the details of his liability and it could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (19 015 190)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in pursuing her for council tax for which she is not liable. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss B to use her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Torbay Council (19 013 684)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about council tax support and data protection issues. This is because the Valuation Tribunal and Information Commissioner’s Office are the appropriate bodies to consider her complaint.

Dorset Council (19 015 933)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Valuation Office Agency has dealt with his request to merge two premises to allow him to claim Small Business Rates Relief. This is because the VOA is a central government agency and is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Northumberland County Council (19 015 086)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council calculated his entitlement for council tax support. This is because Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal and the complaint is now therefore outside the Ombudsman’s legal remit.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 138)

Summary: Mr R complains the Council wrongly summonsed him to attend court for non-payment of Council Tax for a second property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because Mr R could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and there is no direct link between the fault of the Council and the injustice to Mr R.

London Borough of Barnet (19 013 049)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about a historic council tax debt. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

London Borough of Harrow (19 013 629)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about council tax. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve the outcome she wants.

London Borough of Hillingdon (19 014 396)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council pursued enforcement action 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 Haringey (19 014 424)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a Business rates debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this was a matter for the courts.

London Borough of Ealing (19 015 223)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of an overpayment of housing benefit. This is because if Miss X wants to challenge the Council’s decision it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 015 322)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of an alleged overpayment of housing benefit. This is because if Mrs X wants to challenge the Council’s decision it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.

Torbay Council (19 016 202)

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because if Mr B disagreed with the Council’s decision it was reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

North Kesteven District Council (19 017 892)

Summary: Mr K complained the Council applied an empty homes charge to the council tax on his property. The Ombudsman will not consider this complaint as it is reasonable to expect Mr K to appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (19 004 788)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his Council Tax account resulting in recovery action against him. The Council has accepted it was at fault in failing to include a rejected payment amount in a payment plan sent to Mr X. It has already apologised to Mr X, withdrawn all costs, the summons and Liability Order and removed the debt from its enforcement agents in recognition of the distress caused. This is a suitable remedy in this case so, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

Birmingham City Council (19 016 095)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s council tax payments. An investigation is unlikely to find fault causing injustice.

London Borough of Bexley (19 016 393)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the council tax banding at his property. This is because council tax banding is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency, with a right to appeal to a valuation tribunal.