|
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.
Corby Borough Council (18 012 217)
Summary: Miss Q complains the Council has not made reasonable adjustments to its communications; adjustments she needs, due to her disability. It has also not backdated an award of council tax support. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, due to some concerns about the Council’s record keeping, and its exploration of Miss Q’s requests and communications. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.
Milton Keynes Council (19 004 882)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed in dealing with his applications for Discretionary Council Tax Reduction. These delays caused him financial hardship. The Council’s delay and errors in processing Mr X’s Council Tax Reduction claim and discretionary assistance application amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice, for which the Council has offered an appropriate remedy.
Rugby Borough Council (19 019 135)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council recovering council tax arrears following its ending of his claim in 2018. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was submitted outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to a tribunal against the Council’s decisions on his benefits.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 001 262)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and council tax benefit or support. This is because the complaint is late and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.
Birmingham City Council (19 016 520)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s council tax account. This is because parts of the complaint are late and the complainant could have used her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the remaining issues.
London Borough of Barnet (19 011 058)
Summary: it was reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed to an independent tribunal to challenge the Council’s decisions that she was overpaid Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support and the overpayments were recoverable. The Council was not at fault for writing to Ms X each time it reassessed her benefit award to reflect changes in her partner’s earnings.
Bedford Borough Council (20 001 760)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about liability for council tax. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Birmingham City Council (19 008 319)
Summary: There is no fault by the Council relating to an attachment of earnings for Council Tax arrears, which the complainant says has caused financial hardship. The Council has taken account of the armed forces covenant and tried other methods of debt recovery, which did not work. The complaints made about bailiffs are not related to Council tax debt.
Birmingham City Council (19 013 092)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to communicate with him about his tenants’ housing benefit. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council which caused Mr X time and trouble. The Council agreed to our proposed remedies.
Leicester City Council (20 001 093)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit overpayments. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Leeds City Council (20 000 287)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about housing benefit and other issues. This is because he has appealed to a tribunal against the Council’s housing benefit decision, he did not make part of his complaint to us in time and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation into the other parts of his complaint would achieve anything significant for Mr B.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 000 751)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council not sending business rates bills and not awarding small business rates relief on a second property. If Mr X disputes the Council’s interpretation of the law, that is a matter for the courts.
|
