|
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.
Nottingham City Council (20 003 520)
Summary: There was fault by a debt collection agency when collecting a debt from Council Tax. A computer system fault mean that Mr X received two visits from bailiffs and a number of letters in error when he had kept up with an agreed payment plan. The financial remedy offered by the Council and debt collection agency is a satisfactory remedy to injustice suffered by Mr X.
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 008 930)
Summary: Mr X disputes his liability for Council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because this can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 013 729)
Summary: Mr C complained the Council unreasonably asked for repayment of a grant it paid to him in error. We find fault as the Council has not considered using its discretion not to seek repayment of the debt. This causes uncertainty for Mr C. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed to review its decision taking account of the findings set out in this statement.
Manchester City Council (21 000 122)
Summary: Mr B complained the Council misled him into thinking his business would receive a grant payable to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We upheld the complaint finding the Council sent Mr B a series of emails which caused confusion and uncertainty. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice.
New Forest District Council (21 006 412)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse their application for a grant for small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting the decision.
Pendle Borough Council (21 006 414)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mr X’s business a grant.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 006 488)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 local restriction support grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.
London Borough of Brent (20 008 474)
Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his Council Tax account. There were some faults by the Council in how it managed Mr X’s Council Tax account which caused him significant distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.
North Northamptonshire Council (21 000 040)
Summary: Ms X disputes her liability for Council tax and the amount she has to pay. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and banding disputes are out of jurisdiction.
Coventry City Council (21 000 208)
Summary: Mr X complains about a housing benefit overpayment. He says the Council reduced the overpayment in 2017 and he had repaid the overpayment. He also complains the dates on the Council’s invoices are wrong. We find fault with the Council for the delay in taking recovery action and for providing Mr X with incorrect information. We have made a recommendation.
Salford City Council (21 001 194)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed from 20 December 2020 until 4 February 2021 in providing a full statement of account for her late parents’ Council Tax accounts. Mrs X also complained about the Council sending incorrect Council Tax bills from 18 December 2020 to 13 January 2021 and for the way in which it managed her complaint and contacts. The Ombudsman discontinued our investigation of this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault, and any injustice caused to Mrs X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
London Borough of Harrow (21 005 773)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability and council tax support. This is because there are appeal rights the complainant can use.
Wiltshire Council (21 005 946)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing searches requested by the buyers of his late parents’ house. This is because his injustice lies in the council tax payable for the property and the Council has agreed to consider whether to apply a discretionary reduction in his case. This provides a suitable remedy for Mr X and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.
London Borough of Islington (21 005 970)
Summary: Ms X disputes liability for Council tax for a period when she was a student. We will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 027)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about overpayments of council tax reduction. This is because the complainant has requested the Council review its decision. If dissatisfied with the review, the complainant will then have the right to appeal to a tribunal.
London Borough of Barnet (21 006 290)
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 006 539)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding council tax liability as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Lewisham (20 001 593)
Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered whether the complainant’s music business was eligible for the expanded retail discount. It misinterpreted Government guidance about tutoring, and also did not consider whether other aspects of the business meant it should be classified as ‘retail’. The Council has agreed to review its decision with regard to these points, and also to offer the complainant a financial remedy for his time and trouble.
London Borough of Enfield (20 010 307)
Summary: Miss B complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing benefit and council tax support claims following a change in her circumstances. We found the Council at fault for taking a year to rectify an error in her claims which meant she was underpaid by more than £6,000. We do not find any other fault in its actions. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £250 for the distress and hardship she was caused.
Westminster City Council (21 008 884)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with his housing benefit claim. This is because the issue dates back to 2018 and so this is a late complaint.
|
