|
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.
Thanet District Council (21 000 814)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an increase in her annual council tax. This is because we cannot investigate complaints which affect all or most of the population in a council’s area.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 005 798)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 small business grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Ealing (20 008 902)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his council tax and housing benefit claims since 2011, homelessness, and more recent debt recovery. Mr X complains late about much of the history. The Council has agreed to deal with its debt recovery actions via its complaint procedure.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 008 984)
Summary: Mr B complained the Council gave incorrect advice on its policy on council tax exemptions and failed to consider his complaint within reasonable time. The Council says it has now considered his request and decided the exemption does not apply. We find fault with how the Council considered this matter which caused Mr B an injustice. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100. We do not find fault with the decision itself.
London Borough of Lewisham (21 000 397)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has failed to give her the correct amount of housing benefit and decided there was an overpayment of benefit at her former address. Ms X has a right of appeal to the Social Security tribunal against the decisions.
London Borough of Haringey (21 000 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about steps the Council took to recover a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to the Council and then a tribunal.
Ashford Borough Council (21 001 511)
Summary: Mr X complains the council tax band of his home is too high. We cannot investigate as this decision is not made by the Council but by the Valuation Office Agency. We have no remit to investigate its decisions.
Trafford Council (19 020 081)
Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it handled the decision to take continuing enforcement action against the complainant for unpaid Council Tax, and for the delay in communicating with the complainant about this. This caused the complainant and her family distress. The Council has agreed to pay the complainant a financial remedy and carry out a service review.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 108)
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council wrongly told her to claim housing benefit. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making an apology and payment to Mrs Y for the financial loss caused and avoidable time and trouble, and service improvements.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 007 564)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax discount as this complaint is now resolved.
Manchester City Council (20 007 626)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it registered the complainant’s business at the wrong address for business rates. This meant the business was then wrongly given small business rates relief. The Council has agreed to waive a portion of the backdated payments it now requires the business to make. The Council was also at fault because it did not consider the appropriateness of reclaiming a wrongly-paid small business grant. It has agreed to do so now, and apply the same consideration to any similar future case.
Manchester City Council (20 009 591)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council awarded a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant and then cancelled it and demanded repayment. The Council’s failure to show it gave consideration to Mr X’s circumstances when deciding to recover the grant is fault. The Council will now reconsider this decision.
Maidstone Borough Council (21 000 370)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to advise him about a grant scheme for businesses affected by COVID-19. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Gedling Borough Council (21 000 883)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax charged on his empty property as we can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Bromley (20 005 880)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council used the wrong date in a benefit appeal; failed to deal with her council tax support appeal request and failed to deal with a request to review her housing benefit claim due to changes in her tax credit entitlement causing her stress and inconvenience. The benefit appeal forwarded to the Tribunal Service was correct and based on the date stated by Ms X. The Council provided Ms X with details of how to make a council tax support appeal and she did not do this. Ms X has not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the Council not dealing with a complaint in a timely manner.
|
