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.

Owing to a technical problem we weren’t able to issue our bulletins last week. This bumper edition also includes the cases you missed last week.

Westminster City Council (19 018 945)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her correspondence about its use of marked envelopes, which caused stress. The Council admitted it made mistakes writing to Miss X. It apologised and offered Miss X a £300 good faith payment. We found the Council’s actions satisfactory, but it should provide a further apology for its poorly worded final letter to Miss X that suggested it agreed use of marked envelopes was unacceptable. The Council agreed to the further apology, but Miss X did not want an apology.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 006 196)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s administration of the Covid-19 Small Business Grants scheme. This is because the Council has confirmed it will now pay the grant to the complainant, and there is nothing else significant we could achieve by further investigation.

Buckinghamshire Council (20 013 185)

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council did not award her a single occupancy discount for her council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because she could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 455)

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to treat him as a vulnerable debtor due to his disability. We do not find fault with the Council.

Lancashire County Council (20 002 098)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave incorrect advice about how his pension would affect his benefits. This resulted in him owing money to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Council accepted fault and agreed to offer Mr X a remedy.

London Borough of Brent (20 003 493)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council sought to recover his council tax debt. He says the Council threatened him with bankruptcy. Mr X says he now has a large loan that he struggles to repay, which means he has defaulted on his mortgage and utility bills, and means he has not been able to pay this year’s council tax. He says it has also had an impact on his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for poor record keeping. However, the Ombudsman does not find the fault caused Mr X injustice. The Ombudsman does not uphold the rest of Mr X’s complaint.

Manchester City Council (20 005 305)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with support for her business during COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to warrant an investigation.

Northumberland County Council (20 005 225)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a grant for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the decision.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 011 900)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to follow its agreement to pay rent directly to the landlord on behalf of a tenant whom he housed as a homeless applicant. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to take court action in 2019 when his legal representative threatened to do so.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 059)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused a COVID-19 discretionary grant but paid grants to other business in similar circumstances to his. The Council was not at fault for refusing a grant to Mr X. It was at fault for a lack of clarity in its published information about its scheme and for paying grants to other businesses that did not meet the scheme criteria. It should apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for the time and trouble caused. It should also consider remedying the injustice caused to those paid in error, whose grants are being recovered.

Trafford Council (20 011 944)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to register Mr T’s company for business rates. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Dacorum Borough Council (20 012 354)

Summary: Ms X complains about the actions of a bailiff instructed by the Council. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time.

London Borough of Havering (20 012 442)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give the complainant a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Trafford Council (20 012 618)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to his benefit claim between 2013 and 2018. We will not investigate the complaint because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because Mr X had appeal rights to statutory tribunals which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.

Manchester City Council (20 012 790)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his wife’s council tax appeal request. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has apologised and any injustice caused is speculative.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 006 031)

Summary: Mr J complains the Council is trying to enforce an old council tax debt. He says this is unfair, as he cannot now prove he cleared the debt. The Council notes there is no legal time limit on council tax debt enforcement. Our view is the Council was at fault, as it cannot demonstrate it tried to trace Mr J in the intervening years. It is not fair for the Council to now collect the debt when its own delay has prevented Mr J from being able to challenge it. The Council has accepted our recommendations to not pursue the debt. So we have completed our investigation.

Broxtowe Borough Council (20 009 305)

Summary: Mr X complains his mother, Mrs Y, was caused distress by the Council wrongly issuing her with a council tax summons and about how the Council dealt with him when he tried to sort the matter out. We will not investigate as the remaining injustice to Mrs Y is not at a level that would warrant our involvement. In terms, of Mr X’s complaint, it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has already said.

City of London (20 012 034)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her application for a business grant available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Peterborough City Council (20 012 454)

Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s housing benefit decisions affected a housing association. Any fault by the Council concerning tenants’ benefits did not directly cause significant injustice to the housing association. Also, the housing association can take court action.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 712)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax band because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Hillingdon (20 012 049)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to give him small business rates relief for premises he bought in 2020. The Magistrates’ Court is better placed to decide whether Mr Q is liable for business rates for the premises.

London Borough of Haringey (19 018 618)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly demanded money in November 2019 for a housing benefit overpayment he had already paid. The information provided shows that deductions from Mr X’s salary in 2014 were council tax payments. The Council’s delay for five years in taking recovery action is fault and the Council should apologise for this.