IRRV Alert - week ending 24th January 2020
News
Circulars
Reports
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
||||
|
|
||||
A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions |
||||
|
Huntingdonshire District Council (19 008 308)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal. North Somerset Council (19 008 920)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because part of the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault in the more recent enforcement. London Borough of Newham (19 007 339)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council using an enforcement agent to pursue a council tax debt. The complaint is outside jurisdiction because Mr X complains late. Liverpool City Council (19 008 425)
Summary: Mr X complains about council tax and the Council’s decision to restrict his access to the complaints procedure due to his unreasonable behaviour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal against any decision to hold him liable for council tax. Further, the Council has not acted with fault in considering his behaviour to be unreasonable, or that there is any significant injustice from the Council’s decision. London Borough of Redbridge (19 008 483)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his council tax account. This is because he may appeal to the Valuation Tribunal over his liability for the council tax. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (19 008 758)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the rateable value of a business premises she briefly occupied as this is set by the District Valuer and appealable to the Valuation Tribunal. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her liability for business rates as the courts are better placed to determine the issue. City of York Council (19 008 829)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council took council tax enforcement action against him despite the changes that would occur to his council tax account. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Portsmouth City Council (18 016 275)
Summary: Ms B, with the support of a representative from a personal insolvency practice, complains the Council continued to collect debts that were subject to an individual voluntary arrangement, and it pressurised her to agree to a repayment plan. The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint because it is a matter for the court. Birmingham City Council (19 003 269)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault for making his business liable to business rates for a property he had no connection with. The Council failed to follow proper procedures which led to Mr X receiving sudden and inappropriate contact from bailiffs about a debt he did not owe. The Council should make a payment to Mr X to recognise the time and trouble he spent pursuing the complaint and the distress caused by bailiff contact. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (19 008 010)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about benefit applications the complainant’s wife made in 2015 and 2016. This is because it is a late complaint and because his partner could have appealed to the tribunal. London Borough of Merton (19 003 435)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council recovered an outstanding debt using its bailiff. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the bailiff charged the sale fee. The Ombudsman recommends the Council refund Mrs X for the sale and disposal fee and acts to prevent recurrence. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (19 008 076)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s single person council tax discount. This is because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
