A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks 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 Wandsworth (23 000 616)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax increase as it affects all or most of the population in the area.

London Borough of Hackney (23 000 710)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overpayment of housing benefit as there was a right of appeal to a tribunal and the matter is out of time.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (21 017 085)

Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council dealt with her council tax account and claim for council tax reduction and its failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities. Ms C says she has suffered avoidable recovery action and been put to unnecessary time and trouble which has had a harmful impact on her health. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of a symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy in addition to the explanation and apology already provided by the Council.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 007 244)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax support/reduction claim, failure to put in place the reasonable adjustments, and of a data protection breach. This is because the complaint is not in jurisdiction as it was reasonable for Mr X to have appealed to the Valuations Tribunal. In addition, the other complaint matters are late and are better dealt with by another body.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 320)

Summary: Mr X complained a bailiff, acting for the Council, failed to present any proof of necessary documentation during an enforcement visit including a copy of the warrant or liability order. We found fault with the Council for its bailiff providing misinformation to Mr X. The Council agreed to instruct its bailiff to reduce the Enforcement Fee by £100 to reflect the additional distress caused through provision of misleading information. The Council also agreed to provide feedback about the importance of bailiff’s acting on its behalf providing accurate information.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 986)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly used an attachment of earnings to recover council tax arrears directly from his wages. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council used an attachment of earnings despite Mr X making payments in accordance with an agreed repayment arrangement. The Council were also delayed in responding and acknowledging Mr X’s complaint, which could have prevented matters. The Council have accepted our recommendations.

West Northamptonshire Council (22 017 808)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in assessing an exemption for Council tax as the matter has been remedied.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 018 221)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal for the original error and no subsequent evidence of fault by the Council.

Salford City Council (23 000 424)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for Council tax on a property as the matter can be appealed to a tribunal and the matter has been remedied.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 000 445)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a Council tax debt because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice to Mr X.

London Borough of Barnet (22 018 243)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to close Mr X’s Council Tax account when he vacated his former home. This because the Council has appropriately addressed the matter and an investigation would not lead to anything worthwhile. In addition, any injustice caused to Mr X by this matter is minimal.

Babergh District Council (23 000 033)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Miss X's council tax account. This is because the Council has said it will investigate the complaint now and this is a suitable way forward at this time.

London Borough of Southwark (23 000 190)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council claiming Mrs X owed it £15.95. There is not enough injustice to Mrs X.

Sheffield City Council (23 000 767)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the complainant’s entitlement to Housing Benefit. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the specialist Housing Benefit tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (22 011 794)

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council recovering council tax arrears from 2020. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 883)

Summary: Mr X complains that after Council mistakenly terminated his housing benefit claim, it failed to provide a substantive remedy to acknowledge the impact and distress events had on him. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council were at fault when it terminated Mr X’s benefit claim, and although it quickly reinstated Mr X’s claim and backdated his housing benefit, it did not provide a suitable remedy to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience imposed upon him. The Council have accepted our recommendations

London Borough of Lambeth (22 018 239)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application to the Household Support Fund. There was no fault in the Council refusing the January 2023 application on the grounds that it was fewer than 12 months since Ms X’s previous award. It would be disproportionate to investigate the concerns about the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

Liverpool City Council (23 001 428)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his right to appeal the Council’s decision via the Valuation Tribunal.