IRRV Alert - week ending 12th March 2021
News
Circulars
Consultations
Reports
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
||||
|
|
||||
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. Durham County Council (20 008 317)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award a business grant. We have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council was at fault. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 355)
Summary: Mr X, a landlord, complains about the Council’s decision to hold him liable for council tax on a property he lets. We will not investigate this complaint because he had the right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the matter was considered by a court. Birmingham City Council (19 017 213)
Summary: Mrs C complained an enforcement company, acting on behalf of the Council, charged her for a visit to her property it did not make. Mrs C felt harassed by the enforcement company and found the messages it sent her threatening. We found fault with the Council causing injustice. On the balance of probabilities, the enforcement company charged Mrs C an enforcement fee for a visit it did not make and sent her misleading messages. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, make a payment for distress and review how it monitors the enforcement companies it uses. London Borough of Hounslow (20 007 861)
Summary: Mr X disputes the Council’s decision to remove his single occupancy discount from his council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. London Borough of Brent (20 009 273)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to recover an overpayment of housing benefit. We will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to a tribunal. Wealden District Council (20 002 482)
Summary: Mr G complains the Council wrongly refused him a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant (payable to businesses impacted by COVID-19). We do not find the Council at fault for deciding another person should receive the grant. However, we do fault in the Council’s customer service which put Mr G to some unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for that injustice, which we detail at the end of this statement. London Borough of Havering (20 009 002)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council banded his property incorrectly for council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because the decision was made by a body out of jurisdiction and he will have a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 593)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint about the Council refusing a small business grant and small business rates relief. The evidence I have seen suggests the Council was not at fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 003 897)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing a Covid-19 business grant. This is because the evidence does not suggest the Council was at fault. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 584)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing her a business grant. This is because the evidence suggests the Council is not at fault. Craven District Council (20 001 883)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him a discretionary business support grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 000 762)
Summary: The Council was at fault for providing inaccurate information about eligibility for a business grant. The Council has now agreed to pay Mr X £500 for the direct injustice caused. That is an appropriate remedy, so the Ombudsman will not pursue the complaint further. Other parts of the complaint are more appropriately for the courts. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 000 995)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not giving his business a Covid-19-related grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 000 659)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s business not receiving a grant related to the Covid-19 pandemic. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decisions.
|
