IRRV Alert - week ending 4th June 2021
Information Letters
News
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. Burnley Borough Council (20 002 970)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of a discretionary grant, which caused him financial hardship. The Council was not at fault. Ipswich Borough Council (20 004 640)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of a COVID‑19 discretionary grant. He said the refusal added to the financial hardship caused by the pandemic. The Council was at fault for a delay in considering his appeal and failure to send him an appeal decision. It should apologise for this and pay him £100 for the frustration caused. There was no fault in its decision making. City of York Council (20 013 136)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council unfairly issued a summons for unpaid council tax to her. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Ealing (20 013 276)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not awarded the complainant enough housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights. North Norfolk District Council (20 013 563)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to exempt his property from council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal. Selby District Council (20 012 013)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing benefit claim. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and she could appeal to a tribunal. Manchester City Council (20 013 024)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax student exemption because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 006 417)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused a business grant and delayed communicating its decision, resulting in a missed opportunity to apply for a discretionary grant and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault because of the Council’s delay. We recommend it provide an apology and payment for uncertainty and distress. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 008 964)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and benefit overpayments. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.
Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council’s review decision concerning its refusal of an application for Discretionary Housing Payments. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 012 894)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award his business a grant available due to COVID-19. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 654)
Summary: The Council was at fault for wrongly paying Discretionary Housing Payment into an account that was not Mr X’s. The Council has repaid Mr X and put in place actions to stop this occurring again. The Council was also at fault for the delay in handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X in recognition of the delay. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 005 854)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his business a grant, causing financial stress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but find fault in how it communicated with Mr X. We consider an apology would remedy any injustice caused, however we make no recommendation given Mr X does not wish to receive an apology. Birmingham City Council (20 013 044)
Summary: We will not investigate this dispute over council tax liability because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
