|
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.
Northumberland County Council (20 006 305)
Summary: The Council failed to consider Mr X’s request for discretionary relief from council tax and delayed dealing with his complaint. This is fault The Council has agreed to apologise, clear the debt, and pay Mr X £50.
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 030)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Government grant for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
London Borough of Harrow (20 009 668)
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not apply a full council tax exemption and refund all the money she paid. This is because Ms X has the right to appeal against this decision to the Valuation Tribunal. We will not investigate the freedom of information request as this would be better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
North West Leicestershire District Council (20 010 419)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council reduced her entitlement to council tax support and she now faces a higher council tax bill. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and she will have a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
South Northamptonshire District Council (20 002 281)
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider the condition and marketing of her property when deciding not to provide council tax exemption. This is because Mrs X has the right to appeal against this decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
Salford City Council (20 002 316)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of two council tax accounts. The Council was entitled to make a determination which of his two properties was his sole or main residence. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in the decision the Council reached.
Luton Borough Council (20 009 108)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed pursuing an overpayment of housing benefit. The Council is entitled to pursue repayment of the full amount. Mr X complains late about events before December 2019 and there is no reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
Wokingham Borough Council (20 009 440)
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about council tax reduction. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Westminster City Council (20 003 810)
Summary: The Council did not give the wrong advice that Miss X could not claim housing benefit. The Council processed and paid her claims for housing benefit. There is no evidence Miss X was advised by the Council to claim Universal Credit, which she says has made her financially worse off.
London Borough of Haringey (20 006 510)
Summary: We will not investigate how the Council is recovering an overpayment of housing benefit from the complainant. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
Birmingham City Council (20 008 390)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend council tax benefit and housing benefit for a period while Mr X was out of the country. Mr X has appealed to the tribunal and so the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
|
