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.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 003 826)

Summary: Mr D complains the Council has not awarded his business a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant under a scheme to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse a grant. But we do find fault in the Council giving Mr D misleading advice while it considered his application, which raised his expectations he would receive a grant. The Council accepts this finding and at the end of this statement we explain what action it has agreed to remedy the injustice that resulted.

Huntingdonshire District Council (20 009 510)

Summary: We cannot investigate this dispute over council tax liability because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

West Oxfordshire District Council (20 009 538)

Summary: We will not investigate this housing benefit complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, it is a late complaint and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Winchester City Council (20 009 544)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of the single person council tax discount. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Council and then appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

Manchester City Council (20 009 020)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of this housing benefit complaint because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. We will not investigate another part of the complaint because the Council has offered a fair remedy.

Salford City Council (20 009 062)

Summary: Mr X complains about the impact on him of the Council’s attempts to recover an outstanding council tax debt belonging to a third party. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Brighton & Hove City Council (20 009 283)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about entitlement to the council tax single person discount. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

St Albans City Council (19 019 465)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council should not be pursuing her for business rates debts that relate to her company. We found the liability for business rates was outside our jurisdiction. We found no fault in another area of Miss X’s complaint. The Council did delay its response to Miss X’s complaint but its apology was a reasonable remedy for this.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 002 454)

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it calculated Mr X’s housing benefit, resulting in it pursuing him for arrears. The Council has amended Mr X’s rent account and applied the appropriate credits. The Council has also agreed to a financial payment to reflect the distress and uncertainty Mr X experienced.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 008 858)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about costs he incurred after the Council pursued him for business rates. This has been dealt with in court and so we have no legal remit to consider this matter.

Durham County Council (20 009 071)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because the Council has awarded a payment to the complainant.

London Borough of Croydon (20 009 200)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his council tax accounts. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and recommend removal of the compliance and enforcement fees.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 009 887)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr E’s complaint about interest on his council tax refund. The Valuation Office, not the Council, is the body responsible for the decision which affected Mr E, and it is not a body we can investigate.

Bristol City Council (20 003 011)

Summary: Mrs C complains the Council misled her and her husband into thinking their business would receive funding from the Small Business Grant Fund designed to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We uphold the complaint finding the couple received poor customer service and advice when applying for such support. This caused raised expectations and put them to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we explain what action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Hartlepool Borough Council (20 004 182)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly advise him when he called it in May 2019 to discuss his entitlement to Council tax reduction. He also complained the Council failed to keep a record of his call. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because there is no evidence supporting Mr X’s statements and no evidence of fault on the part of the Council.

Southampton City Council (20 008 360)

Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to pay business grants. The evidence suggests the Council was not at fault.

Sheffield City Council (20 009 507)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant has appealed to the tribunal.