|
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.
Scarborough Borough Council (20 005 741)
Summary: The Council decided the complainant did not qualify for a small business grant, because he was not trading from the premises where he was registered for small business rates relief. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision and so we cannot criticise it. For this reason, we have completed our investigation.
Salford City Council (20 014 523)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
Maidstone Borough Council (20 014 524)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has not applied a single person’s discount to her council tax as Ms X can appeal against this decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Croydon (21 000 144)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her council tax account. This is because the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.
East Staffordshire Borough Council (20 001 307)
Summary: Mr X complained that information the Council published about a Council tax premium lacked clarity. He said this caused him an injustice because it disrupted his financial planning and because dealing with the dispute caused him distress. The Council accepts the information on its website was unclear. That is fault. It has already partially remedied this by amending its website. In my view it is unlikely Mr X would have avoided the charge even if it had been clearer. But Mr X was inconvenienced by the Council’s unclear guidance and the Council’s approach to Mr X’s complaint was at fault. We have recommended a payment to acknowledge this.
New Forest District Council (20 013 801)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to award her housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.
London Borough of Croydon (20 014 307)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax payments and its inadequate offer of compensation. We will not investigate the complaint because Mr X’s injustice is limited and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.
London Borough of Ealing (20 012 079)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to explain a debt arising from an overpayment of housing benefit. I am satisfied the Council has explained the debt, the possibility of a further challenge, and the need for an arrangement to pay. The overpayments arose in 2017 and 2019. We will not investigate because legally Ms X had appeal rights and complains late having known about the debt more than 12 months.
Burnley Borough Council (20 002 852)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of a discretionary grant. There was some fault in the way the Council considered his application. The Council should apologise and pay him £100 for the frustration caused.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 005 418)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 discretionary business grant because his business was based at home. The Council was not at fault.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 451)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to award his business a grant, causing financial loss. We find no evidence of fault in how the Council decided on Mr X’s request for a discretionary grant.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 631)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to award his business a grant, causing financial difficulty and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
Hastings Borough Council (20 008 835)
Summary: Mr B complained the Council unlawfully charged him council tax for an unsafe property. He said it also failed to ensure the property was not occupied and it failed to respond properly to his concerns. As a result, Mr B said he experienced distress and had council tax costs. The Council was at fault because it failed to inspect the property for hazards under the Housing Act 2004 when it said it would. It did not unlawfully charge Mr B council tax, but on balance, the property would have been exempt earlier if it had inspected it. The Council was also at fault for its failure to respond to Mr B’s solicitor and explain its need for consent. There was no fault on the other matters complained about. The Council should apologise to Mr B and make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused. It should also write-off or reimburse Mr B for the council tax cost from March 2020.
Plymouth City Council (20 010 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to deal properly with his council tax account, sent a final reminder notice threatening court action, and refused to reply in writing to his complaint. Although the Council was at fault it has apologised appropriately to Mr X and had corrected the council tax account. We will ask the Council to ensure it provides a written reply to a complainant.
Leicester City Council (20 013 980)
Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the council tax empty property premium. This is because Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 014 100)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for a COVID-19 self-isolation grant. The Council has now granted Mr X’s application and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.
East Suffolk Council (20 014 192)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears. This is because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and because the arrears have been confirmed in court. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 000 131)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an annexe at his house being banded for council tax as this is not a decision of the Council.
London Borough of Haringey (20 007 229)
Summary: Ms B complained about the Council miscalculating her and her brother’s council tax for the period when she was a full-time student. She said this confused them and led them to believe she overpaid her council tax. The Council was at fault for raising Ms B’s and Mr X’s expectations about a possible council tax refund. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 593)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused him business rates relief and a business grant, resulting in distress, time and trouble. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but find its poor communication with Mr X amounts to fault. We recommend the Council provides an apology and payment.
Havant Borough Council (19 017 819)
Summary: A man complained that the Council wrongly sent him a summons for council tax arrears which related to someone else with the same name, and failed to respond to his complaint about this matter. But we do not have grounds to start an investigation of this complaint because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for what went wrong.
|
