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.

Rushcliffe Borough Council (21 010 864)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and council tax reduction. This is because the problem has been resolved.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 789)

Summary: the Council has already provided a satisfactory remedy for injustice caused by its fault in responding to Miss X’s enquiries about disputed arrears on her Council Tax account.

Charnwood Borough Council (21 009 788)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about costs added to Mr X’s council tax account as the injustice to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement and part of his complaint is made late.

Bedford Borough Council (21 009 795)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax because there is insufficient evidence of fault for one part of the complaint and insufficient evidence of injustice for the other part.

North Somerset Council (21 010 381)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax summons because the problem has been resolved.

London Borough of Ealing (21 010 468)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdating Council Tax Support because he could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the complaint is late.

Westminster City Council (21 010 136)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council is pursuing him for council tax debts he has paid. We will not investigate this complaint because the Ombudsman has previously considered his complaint about an earlier period (and is therefore invalid), and it is more reasonable for him to provide evidence to support his case for payment of the recent debt than for an investigation by the Ombudsman.

City of London (21 010 294)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the City of London Corporation (‘the Corporation’) reclaiming a business grant and business rates relief. This is because the Corporation properly reached its decision the business had not been eligible.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 586)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a reduction in the complainant’s Council Tax Reduction. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 010 755)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council incorrectly considers that the complainant is liable for council tax. This is because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

North Warwickshire Borough Council (21 010 793)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council incorrectly considers that the complainant is liable for council tax. This is because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 672)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a Local Restrictions Support Grant, which caused upset and distress, as well as adding to the financial difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was not at fault.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 135)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants. The Council was not at fault for the way it considered whether Mr X’s business was occupying the business premises in March 2020. This meant the business was not eligible for a small business grant. It was not at fault for refusing other COVID-19 business grants.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 136)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants, adding to the financial difficulties caused by the pandemic. The Council was not at fault.

Eastbourne Borough Council (21 009 505)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision in 2020 that there was a recoverable overpayment of housing benefit. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her remedy of challenging the decision at the Social Security Tribunal. The Council has now reviewed and cancelled the overpayment.

London Borough of Croydon (21 010 692)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s recovery of a debt by way of an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 009 372)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disputed council tax liability. This is because it is reasonable for Mr and Mrs Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Croydon (21 010 651)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s communications and anyway any fault would not directly have caused a significant injustice. Miss X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about her council tax liability for the period she was a student.

London Borough of Camden (20 006 485)

Summary: Mr G and Mr H complained the Council refused their businesses grants under schemes set up in March 2020 to support businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

London Borough of Camden (20 009 015)

Summary: Mr G and Mr H complained the Council refused their businesses grants under schemes set up in March 2020 to support businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

London Borough of Bexley (21 006 328)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to Miss X’s housing benefit and council tax discount. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to use her appeal rights to address the core decisions, and the ICO is best placed to consider a complaint about information handling. There is otherwise not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of it causing Miss X significant injustice, so the rest of the complaint does not warrant investigation.