|
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.
Sheffield City Council (19 007 744)
Summary: There were faults in the way the Council handled Miss B’s housing benefit claim. The Council should apologise and make a payment to her.
Lincoln City Council (19 009 667)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council should not have cancelled Mr Y’s benefits, it gave him incorrect advice and added unreasonable enforcement fees to Mr Y’s debt. We found the Council was not at fault.
Blackburn with Darwen Council (19 010 707)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with his applications for a Discretionary Housing Payment. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.
Leicester City Council (19 015 840)
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son that the Council unreasonably suspended, the ended his entitlement to housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a tribunal and the matter is out of time.
Bristol City Council (19 017 478)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council took council tax recovery action against her even though she is not liable to pay the bill. This is because this Council has now changed its decision on Mrs B’s council tax liability so it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a significantly different outcome.
Norwich City Council (19 015 827)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay housing benefit to a claimant. This is because the claimant has already appealed to a tribunal about the Council’s decision.
Cornwall Council (19 016 801)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not add interest to a backdated sum of Council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council as this was determined by the Valuation Office Agency (a body out of jurisdiction).
London Borough of Haringey (19 000 635)
Summary: The Council delayed in dealing with information on a council tax account and a claim for council tax reduction. Enforcement agents, acting for the Council, did not follow the regulations. The Council caused unnecessary time, trouble and distress to the complainant, who the Council knew was vulnerable. To put this right the Council will apologise, make a payment to the complainant and assess her correct council tax reduction. It will tell the Ombudsman what it will do to ensure in future its officers and agents deal correctly with vulnerable people.
Daventry District Council (19 008 490)
Summary: Mrs X complained the large bill from an overpayment of benefits was unreasonable and the Council should have allowed her case to go to a late appeal. The Council advised Mrs X of her appeal rights at the outset giving her a chance to make an appeal against the calculation of the overpayment. However, when Mrs X wanted to make a late appeal the Council did not clearly explain what action it would take. It has agreed to pass a late appeal to a Tribunal if Mrs X provides clear and specific reasons for her concerns about the calculation of the overpayments. This resolves any injustice from this element of the complaint.
Blackburn with Darwen Council (19 009 232)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not paid a full refund of Council tax following a backdated exemption. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 272)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to deal with a change to her council tax fairly. This concerned a change from a joint account to council tax account in Miss X’s sole name. There was no fault by the Council.
Cambridge City Council (19 014 262)
Summary: The owner of a narrowboat complained the Council had unlawfully billed her for council tax. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter as there is no sign of fault by the Council. The owner instead needed to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to dispute the Valuation Office Agency’s decision to include her boat in the rating list.
Herefordshire Council (19 017 003)
Summary: Mrs B complains the Council is demanding council tax she does not owe. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he does not have the legal power to do so.
London Borough of Camden (19 019 192)
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a charitable trust that the Council has not applied Mandatory Rate Relief to the trust’s business rates. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is a matter better considered by a court.
Swale Borough Council (19 016 475)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and if Miss X disputes liability, she can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Birmingham City Council (19 006 920)
Summary: Mr D complains about the Council’s enforcement action for unpaid council tax. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault. And, in any case, there is no injustice, as the Council has decided not to collect unpaid enforcement fees.
Cornwall Council (19 007 907)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to remove her single person council tax discount in 2012, failing to notify her of appeal rights, and a breach of data protection. She says the Council has not charged her correctly for council tax. She says this has caused her distress, anxiety and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not telling Miss X of her appeal rights sooner. However, this did not cause Miss X injustice because she was notified of fresh appeal rights in 2019. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault for the way it has charged Miss X for council tax and enforcement costs. The Ombudsman will not investigate the parts of Miss X’s complaint about the decision to remove the discount because it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and about data protection breaches because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with complaints of this nature.
Isle of Wight Council (19 009 535)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council invoiced him for two years of backdated council tax that he had already paid to his landlord. He says this impacted on his health. The Ombudsman has discontinued this investigation because the Council has resolved the issue.
Dartford Borough Council (19 010 624)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him incorrect information about a council tax exemption and also delayed in determining a planning application. After sending incorrect bills for three years the Council then demanded a backdated payment of almost £7,000. An appropriate remedy for the injustice suffered is agreed. An alternative remedy, by way of appeal to a Government Minister, was available in respect of the delay in determining the planning application so this part of the complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
London Borough of Redbridge (19 014 815)
Summary: A business owner complained that the Council had wrongly calculated his business rates. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Haringey (19 015 391)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend his wife’s housing benefit. This is because the complaint is late and it was reasonable to appeal to the tribunal.
London Borough of Islington (19 016 049)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council encouraged her to carry out work to her home which reduced its value. Mrs X is also unhappy because she says the work meant a higher council tax bill. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, we cannot investigate if someone has appealed to a tribunal, and we have no powers to consider decisions taken by the Valuation Office Agency.
London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 016 300)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council starting enforcement action for the late payment of Council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, so an investigation is not warranted.
|
