|
Please note: from this week we are changing how we publish our decisions. We are moving to publishing six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint, so this week's edition will include significantly more cases. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 021 123)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed sending his request for a review of his housing benefit decision to the tribunal. We have completed our investigation. The Council accepts it was at fault and has identified a suitable remedy. It agrees to pay Mr X £275. We have recommended further action to remedy injustice to others who have not complained.
North Norfolk District Council (20 006 307)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an increase in the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can submit an appeal to the council tax department.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 643)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council recovering an overpayment from his housing benefit following allegations of fraud in 2014. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because housing benefit overpayments carry a right of appeal to an independent tribunal and Mr X could have appealed when he was notified of the overpayment. We received his complaint outside the normal 12-month time limit for receiving complaints.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 927)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax liability as this is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 559)
Summary: Mr X complains about the service he received from the Council’s council tax department. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied and the outstanding injustice is insufficient to warrant investigation.
London Borough of Bromley (20 006 591)
Summary: Ms X disputes the Council’s decision to hold her liable for council tax on a property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she had a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the matter has been remedied.
Wakefield City Council (20 006 732)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and the matters are out of time.
Maidstone Borough Council (19 013 607)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council unfairly pursued her for Council tax payments she did not owe. She said this caused her stress and upset. The Council was at fault when it failed to clearly explain what she owed on several occasions. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X in recognition of the uncertainty and stress this caused her.
Bristol City Council (20 001 663)
Summary: The Council wrongly told Miss X it owed her a large amount of money. The Council caused injustice as Miss X borrowed money from family and friends in expectation of the payment before the Council told her it had made a mistake. Miss X struggled to pay back the loans. To put this right the Council will pay Miss X £150 in recognition of the trouble and distress it caused her.
London Borough of Harrow (20 005 674)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax bill. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman can add to what the Council has already said or change the outcome of the complaint.
London Borough of Lambeth (20 006 455)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint from a landlord about liability for council tax. This is because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Warwick District Council (19 018 093)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly informed him his mother’s property qualified for a council tax exemption. We found fault as the Council gave Mr X wrong information and he was put to some time and trouble resolving the matter. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Mr X in recognition of the time and trouble caused which is suitable action for it to take. So, we have completed our investigation.
Winchester City Council (20 005 358)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow single occupant’s discount on the council tax bill for his former address which his wife remained living at. He also says the Council’s incorrect use of his family name breached data protection regulations. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the decision on a discount. Mr X has already complained about the data issue to the office of the Information Commissioner which is the proper authority to consider such matters.
Oxford City Council (20 006 147)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award a council tax discount on his property due to works carried out. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
Maidstone Borough Council (20 005 252)
Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council decided she was liable for council tax at her rental property. We will not investigate as Mrs X can address the substantive injustice to her, the disputed decision on council tax liability, via an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Lewisham (19 015 222)
Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss F’s complaint about the way it handled her housing benefit and council tax reduction claims. It wrongly told her she could appeal a suspension decision. It failed to provide a copy of a letter it sent in response to her appeal request. It delayed dealing with her request to appeal its decision to end her claims by 4 months. It failed to act on a separate appeal to add her baby to the household. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
Oxford City Council (19 015 596)
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y, the Council delayed dealing with his housing benefit appeal. The Council was at fault for the delay in passing the appeal to tribunal. It was not at fault for reconsidering the appeal but was at fault for not passing the appeal to tribunal after the reconsideration. This did not cause Mr Y a significant injustice as the Council did not take recovery action while awaiting the appeal and Mr Y has now had his appeal. The Council should review its procedures to prevent recurrence of the fault.
Southampton City Council (19 017 103)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to cancel his housing benefit. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by apologising, refunding cost courts of £446 and paying Mr X £250 to reflect the avoidable upset, time and trouble its faults caused him.
Three Rivers District Council (20 006 148)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council has made errors with her council tax support claim. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Ealing (20 005 207)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the complainant can appeal to the tribunal and because the Council has recalled the debt from debt collectors.
London Borough of Ealing (20 005 931)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way her complaint has been considered by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint about a complaints process where the substantive complaint is not to be investigated.
London Borough of Lambeth (20 000 866)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not refunded all the Council Tax she overpaid when she was a student and therefore exempt. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. It should apologise, issue a refund, and pay Miss X £150.
South Staffordshire District Council (20 001 781)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award a small business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 005 318)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay interest on a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 763)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a council tax bill for an empty property. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to use the appeal rights available to her.
London Borough of Ealing (20 005 369)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrongly charging council tax for what were once separate flats but which now form one house in multiple occupation. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 423)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council is incorrectly seeking payment of council tax from her. She says the Council re-calculated her council tax liability and is wrongly seeking payment through the courts. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her unnecessary stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council seeking recovery of unpaid council tax, but some fault in the way it handled Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice to Miss X.
Warwick District Council (20 004 987)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council not considering Mr Y’s ill health in its decision to take him to court. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the legal power to investigate complaints about the start of court action, the complaint is late and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaints procedures where we cannot investigate the substantive issue.
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 005 420)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing benefit claim and its assessment. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied and there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.
London Borough of Haringey (20 005 453)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council held her liable for council tax on a property after she left. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the Valuation Tribunal.
Bristol City Council (19 009 255)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision that he was not entitled to small business rate relief. The Council is at fault as it did not consider Mr X’s utility bills as evidence he was occupying a business unit at the time he submitted the bills. This fault did not cause injustice to Mr X as the Council has now considered the bills and it would not have made a different decision if it had considered the bills earlier. The Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure which will have caused frustration to Mr X. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint which is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the frustration caused to Mr X.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 921)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has wrongly assessed her housing benefit claim. This is because Mrs X can appeal the Council’s decision to a tribunal and it is reasonable for her to do this.
London Borough of Islington (20 004 625)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly contacted his mother about a debt she did not owe. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Dartford Borough Council (19 013 106)
Summary: Miss C complained the Council took nine months after being informed of her housing occupancy to bill her for council tax. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it delayed sending council tax bills to Miss C. This caused her unnecessary shock and distress. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Miss C.
Leeds City Council (20 004 657)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council took too much money from her bank account for a council tax payment. The Ombudsman will not investigate as the alleged Council fault did not cause Miss X a significant injustice and he cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.
South Ribble Borough Council (20 005 135)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to take into account all his payments of council tax before issuing a bill. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and any dispute about payments was for the court to determine.
Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 000 332)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s late complaint about the way the Council dealt with his claims for housing benefit and council tax reduction. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr B to use his right of appeal to the Tribunal Service.
North Somerset Council (20 003 505)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unfairly treated his neighbour differently for council tax purposes. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no injustice to him and he has a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal if he wishes to dispute his council tax.
Medway Council (20 004 232)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge council tax when the complainant had already paid council tax, to his landlady, through his rent. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the landlady appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and the complainant could have appealed.
Torbay Council (20 004 537)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a crisis support payment so the complainant can buy a generator. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 019)
Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her father about council tax levied on his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any dispute about liability can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. Any dispute as to whether or not the property should be listed is for the Valuation Office Agency (Valuation Office Agency).
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 145)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to impose an empty houses premium on his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision.
Leeds City Council (20 005 209)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for the council tax student exemption. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
Mid Suffolk District Council (20 001 387)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly held him liable for paying council tax on a property he owns and that the conduct of the case officer involved criminal offences. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal on the council tax which it was reasonable for him to use. We cannot investigate criminal offences.
London Borough of Haringey (19 013 480)
Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council’s delaying inspecting a property she converted from a house in multiple occupation to separate flats. She says the delay meant the Council billed her for council tax she should not have been liable for. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint due to the Council’s delay in responding to Mrs C’s emails. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C. But the delay was not the reason for Mrs C’s outstanding council tax bill.
London Borough of Bromley (19 013 869)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council acted unreasonably when it issued a summons and engaged bailiffs in respect of a council tax debt. We found no fault by the Council.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 079)
Summary: Miss C complains the Council incorrectly took enforcement action against her and failed to deal with her complaint effectively. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council and it has agreed to remedy the injustice by providing Miss C with a payment of £250 for the avoidable distress it caused. The Council has also agreed to take the relevant steps to put Miss C back in the position she would have been in if the fault had not occurred.
High Peak Borough Council (20 004 478)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 543)
Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of historic council tax debt. She considers the Council has not provided sufficient information to show she owes the money claimed. She says that as a result there has been action by enforcement agents. That, and her contact with the Council, has been stressful. There was fault by the Council for which it should apologise and make a small payment to Ms B.
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 525)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council is charging him extra council tax on a home he has been unable to move into due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council agreed to consider Mr X’s case under its discretionary powers to provide help towards council tax and has now removed the extra charge. This represents a suitable resolution to this complaint and so the Ombudsman will not investigate.
Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 002 427)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council enforced a council tax upon him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Any dispute about liability for council tax is for the Valuation Tribunal.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 366)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council imposed a council tax premium for his council tax bill as his property was empty. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Medway Council (20 004 207)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council held him liable for business rates on a property and refused rate relief. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this matter was considered by the court, and the liability and rate relief matter is premature as the Council is reviewing his request.
Mendip District Council (20 004 630)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainants could have appealed to the tribunal.
Maidstone Borough Council (19 017 863)
Summary: Miss X says the Council took too long to determine her Discretionary Housing Payment request, asked for information that was excessive and then paid the award to someone other than her landlord. The Ombudsman has found the Council is responsible for some delay and that it also failed to reply to her communications about this matter. In recognition he recommended the Council apologises to Miss X and reminds staff about the importance of replying to communications from claimants. The Council agreed.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 260)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to recover council tax which the complainant is jointly liable for with his wife. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant injustice.
London Borough of Lambeth (20 004 203)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a council tax refund by cheque. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like. The complainant could contact the Information Commissioner regarding her complaint that the Council has breached data regulations.
City of York Council (20 004 543)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably issued a large backdated council tax bill as a result of their own error. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he did not dispute the bill and the sum has been paid. Any remaining injustice does not warrant investigation.
Birmingham City Council (20 004 681)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s housing costs linked to her Universal Credit. This is because he cannot investigate the Council when it is acting as a landlord and because he cannot investigate the Department for Work and Pensions.
Teignbridge District Council (19 017 183)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council held him liable for business rates while it was considering a planning decision on his commercial property. He says the delays in the planning process caused him financial loss and a loss of income. He also complains about delays in the Council’s complaints handling. The Ombudsman finds no fault in how the Council applied business rates charges, but fault in how it handled Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused to Mr X.
Leicester City Council (20 003 899)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint arising from disputed council tax liability. The complainant has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find other fault by the Council has caused the complainant injustice that justifies his involvement.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 347)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr T’s complaint for Mrs G about Council Tax liability. This is because Mrs G has used her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision.
Trafford Council (19 014 664)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award him discretionary housing payment, causing him to fall into rent arears. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council as it has not properly considered Mr X’s transport costs and wrongly advised him public transport costs are not allowed for people not working. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and reconsider his application for discretionary housing payment.
London Borough of Southwark (20 000 518)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council taking bankruptcy proceeds against him over unpaid business rates for which he says he was not liable. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters which Mr X was aware of more than 12 months before he complained to us. We cannot consider complaints about matters which have been subject to court proceedings.
Brighton & Hove City Council (20 001 008)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about housing benefit matters. Mrs X had the right to appeal against the key decision affecting her. Part of the complaint is late. It is also unlikely the Ombudsman could reach a clear enough view now on events dating back some years.
London Borough of Brent (20 002 746)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council billed the complainant for council tax or took recovery action. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to the Valuation about the amount of council tax he must pay. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault with other actions taken by the Council.
London Borough of Enfield (20 003 909)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with an increase in rent for his tenant’s housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because entitlement to housing benefit is a matter for the claimant and the Council. The tenant has a right of appeal to a tribunal.
Gloucester City Council (20 004 366)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a council tax reminder the Council issued in error. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.
Bassetlaw District Council (20 001 037)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council evicting her in 2019 for rent arrears which she says were due to problems with her housing benefit assessment. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about social housing landlords. We will not exercise discretion to consider the award of housing benefit after her eviction because she complained outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.
London Borough of Hounslow (20 002 994)
Summary: Ms A complained about the Councils decision to withdraw the Council Tax support it was providing her with. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because disputes over the council tax support payment are best considered in court or tribunal and the complaint is out of time.
Cornwall Council (20 000 208)
Summary: the Council was not at fault when it refused to make a discretionary payment from its crisis and care award scheme to help Miss X with the costs of moving home.
Trafford Council (20 004 166)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has found him liable for Business rates on a property which he disputes. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the courts.
South Holland District Council (19 018 693)
Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to consider her ask for a review of its decision not to backdate Council Tax Support to January 2019. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council’s actions because it has not considered Mrs X’s review request or provided her with details of how to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Therefore, he recommended the Council consider her review request, pay her £150 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble and caused to her in pursuing this matter and apologise. The Council agreed.
London Borough of Enfield (20 002 811)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this council tax complaint and general complaint that the Council is not dealing with issues in the complainant’s area. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the Ombudsman cannot achieve what the complainant hopes for, and because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate recruitment issues.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 289)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not calculate his benefit claim correctly. Mr X has already appealed to a tribunal about his housing benefit, it is reasonable to expect him to appeal to a tribunal about his council tax support and we would be unlikely to find fault about his other concern.
|
