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 Haringey (19 016 554)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrongly taking recovery action regarding a Housing Benefit overpayment and hasn’t dealt with his complaint properly. The Council is at fault because Mr X was not advised of his appeal right and it delayed dealing with Mr X’s complaint. Mr X was not able to exercise his appeal rights. The Council has agreed to pause its recovery action and re-issue the overpayment letter to Mr X.

London Borough of Ealing (20 004 865)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint the Council has demanded payment of £3957 from her for a Housing Benefit overpayment. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to appeal to a statutory tribunal at the relevant time if she wished to dispute the Council’s Housing Benefit decisions.

Worcester City Council (20 007 550)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the charging of council tax. This is because Mrs Y has a right to appeal the charge to the Valuation Tribunal Service who are better placed to consider the issue.

London Borough of Harrow (19 019 756)

Summary: There was no fault in the addition of court costs to the complainant’s Council Tax arrears; nor did the Council fail to take account of her vulnerability. There was no fault in the Council automatically switching the complainant to electronic Council Tax bills, although it should have processed her request to resume paper billing. But this fault did not cause an injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Newark & Sherwood District Council (20 005 831)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify pursuing the complaint further.

Manchester City Council (20 006 534)

Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing him a small business grant. This is because any investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (20 006 995)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal properly with her requests for an appeal against its housing benefit and council tax support decisions from 2018. Ms X has appealed to the relevant tribunals against the Council’s recent decisions. She may return to this office once she has a decision on her appeals and we will consider whether to investigate the earlier period.

Leeds City Council (20 007 150)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for business grants available due to the impact of COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Kettering Borough Council (20 007 569)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding her application for the extended retail discount available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (20 007 711)

Summary: Mr X complains about the level of housing benefit paid to his tenants. We will not investigate this complaint because there was a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 740)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not implemented a tribunal decision from 2019. This is because it is a late complaint, there were appeal rights the complainant could have used, and because part of the complaint has already been considered by the tribunal.

Manchester City Council (20 008 026)

Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not giving him a council tax exemption. This is mainly because of Mr X’s right to appeal to a tribunal.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 561)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s application for a council tax discount. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice.

Bristol City Council (20 008 007)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to extend his council tax exemption period. We will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 090)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her a small business grant, causing increased financial loss and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.

Milton Keynes Council (20 007 105)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

London Borough of Newham (19 018 747)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was wrong to make him liable for council tax while a hearing was ongoing about succession of his tenancy. We found the Council failed to deal with appeal correspondence properly in 2018 and 2019. The Council should make a payment and agree to pass on a late appeal now if Mr X wishes.

Luton Borough Council (20 003 504)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about errors the Council made in relation to a reference number. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

South Northamptonshire District Council (20 006 586)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council overcharging him for council tax after it credited a payment to one of his other accounts and failed to refund him. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused significant injustice to Mr X.

South Northamptonshire District Council (20 007 461)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 008 326)

Summary: We 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.

Cornwall Council (19 011 503)

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complained about action the Council and its enforcement agents took when they were recovering a Council Tax debt Mrs X owed. We found some fault but this did not cause any injustice. The enforcement agents’ fees have since been removed and this provides the outcome Mr & Mrs X wanted.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (20 006 970)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council charging him full council tax for a property which he says was tenanted by others in the past and where he is living on universal credit at present. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge council tax liability by appealing to the Valuation Tribunal which is the proper authority to determine liability.

Norwich City Council (19 009 594)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on overpayment of housing benefit and its handling of his account. The Ombudsman will not investigate the overpayment because there is a right to appeal to the Tribunal. The Ombudsman will not investigate matters that arose more than 12 months ago, as Mr X could have complained sooner. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s record keeping and is satisfied with its proposed action to prevent recurrence.