|
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.
Uttlesford District Council (21 005 292)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a housing benefit issue. Ms C has appealed to a tribunal about the central matter, and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome on related action. We also cannot investigate part of the complaint where the Council is acting as a landlord. The complaint is also late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 005 777)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a housing benefit claim. Any investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Moreover, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to justify an investigation.
Medway Council (21 005 979)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Attachment of Earnings order for council tax made by the Council and the lack of telephone communication. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Moreover, any injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 006 726)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about advice issued over council tax exemptions. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 007 678)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to correctly assess the sum of her Housing Benefit overpayment. We will not investigate the complaint at this stage, as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to a tribunal.
Blackburn with Darwen Council (21 005 994)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Pendle Borough Council (21 006 271)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax empty homes premium. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.
Slough Borough Council (21 008 092)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the increased precept demand authorised by the Parish Council. This is because we have no legal power to investigate complaints about Parish Councils.
Medway Council (20 013 535)
Summary: Mr B complained about the Councils decision not to backdate the single person discount on his council tax account. He also complained about its complaint handling. He said this caused him financial hardship and stress. We did not find fault with the Council.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 553)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing a COVID-19 business grant on the basis the premises were not mainly used for retail.
West Northamptonshire Council (21 006 904)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to extend a six-month council tax exemption. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Ashford Borough Council (21 006 209)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not granted full council tax relief on a property he owns. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered its discretion in this matter. We cannot lawfully question its council tax policy.
Worthing Borough Council (21 008 143)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overpayment of Housing Benefit. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the specialist Housing Benefit tribunal. We have no legal power to investigate.
Cornwall Council (20 013 381)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award her a grant for small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Haringey (20 013 446)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused him a full discretionary grant payment, causing financial loss. We find fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommend it provides Mr X with an apology, a payment for time and trouble and a payment of £9000, for injustice caused by the missed discretionary grant payment.
Isle of Wight Council (21 008 078)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax rebate. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 007 923)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to explain her council tax charges, respond to her e-mails for a payment agreement and added unfair recovery costs to her bill. We have not found evidence of fault.
|
