|
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.
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 307)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused him a small business grant causing financial loss. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
London Borough of Newham (19 012 145)
Summary: we consider there was fault by the Council when it sought to recover business rates from Mrs A. Part of the debt was too old for the Council to threaten recovery action. Mrs A says this caused her distress. The Council has agreed the remedy we proposed.
Scarborough Borough Council (20 007 209)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a council tax bill for her holiday home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mrs X wants to dispute her liability for council tax, she can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Birmingham City Council (20 007 571)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 386)
Summary: Mrs X and Miss Y complained about the Council’s failure to provide discretionary welfare support, reduce their Council Tax bill and make reasonable adjustments. The Ombudsman has found no fault with how the Council has dealt with these matters.
Isle of Wight Council (19 019 489)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly took enforcement action against him for unpaid council tax. He also complains the Council wrongly sent enforcement correspondence to his old address. Mr X says he had to pay unnecessary costs and spent time and trouble dealing with the Council’s enforcement action. We find no fault in the Council’s actions regarding this matter.
Cannock Chase District Council (20 006 230)
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Miss Y’s application for a business grant. This is because any investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council.
London Borough of Lewisham (20 006 460)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax payable on an empty property. The complainant has rights of appeal about his liability. We have exercised discretion not to investigate other aspects of the complaint.
London Borough of Ealing (19 020 994)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council wrongly holds her liable for council tax for the period March 2015 to October 2019 in relation to a property she owned but did not live in. She also complains the Council has failed to communicate with her or respond to her complaints and has wrongly taken enforcement action against her. The Council’s failure to respond to Miss X’s complaint in line with its complaint process and notify of her appeal rights amounts to fault. The Council’s offer to complete the complaints process and provide Miss X with her appeal rights is an appropriate response.
Selby District Council (20 005 483)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss 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.
Hastings Borough Council (20 006 729)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his council tax liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Bristol City Council (20 006 909)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for funding under the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
South Cambridgeshire District Council (20 007 109)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is charging him council tax for short term holiday letting properties rather than business rates. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants by investigating his complaint.
Hastings Borough Council (20 007 132)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s actions in pursuing her for council tax when she was not the person liable. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because we would reasonably to have expected her to have used her appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Lambeth (19 016 156)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her council tax account. We have completed our investigation. The Council is at fault for not making a decision about Ms X’s application for discretionary relief. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X £150, and issue a decision.
Cheshire East Council (20 003 215)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling and decision on her request for a business grant, causing financial loss, uncertainty and distress. We find no fault causing injustice either in the Council’s process or in its decision making.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 217)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision making on a discretionary grant for her business, resulting in financial loss. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 013)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council billing him as a landlord for unpaid council tax due on rental flats when the tenant has left before the end of the tenancy. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which Mr X was aware of before the 12-month period for receiving complaints. It is reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to challenge liability where the Council has billed him instead of his tenant.
London Borough of Lewisham (20 007 212)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the complainant cannot claim housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.
London Borough of Ealing (20 007 230)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not determined his housing benefit claim. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council is not responsible for the delay.
Huntingdonshire District Council (20 007 686)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s council tax policy to remove a discount in relation to empty properties. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice to Ms X.
East Cambridgeshire District Council (20 007 804)
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.
Devon County Council (20 006 840)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his grant applications. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr X significant injustice.
|
