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.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 658)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants, causing upset and distress. The Council decided the grant applications in line with relevant Government Guidance and was not at fault.

Oxford City Council (21 010 173)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a claim for housing benefit. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

London Borough of Croydon (21 010 701)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has recovered council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 277)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a student’s entitlement to council tax reduction because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Brighton & Hove City Council (21 011 445)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about how he was spoken to in a telephone call to the Council and about the level of council tax the Council says he owes. This is because we cannot add to what the Council has already said or achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

London Borough of Southwark (21 011 623)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s council tax as there is no fault by the Council and there will be a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal in any dispute.

London Borough of Haringey (21 011 983)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to intervene in a contractual dispute between him and his landlord. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s injustice is the result of the actions of his landlord rather than the Council.

London Borough of Newham (21 011 745)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Magistrates’ Court’s alleged failure to notify the complainant of a hearing and its alleged failure to grant the complainant’s request for the adjourned hearing to take place virtually. This is because it is outside our jurisdiction as we cannot investigate what happened in court.

City of York Council (21 011 910)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt whilst he was appealing against their decision. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and he has appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Islington (21 011 084)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him expanded retail discount as there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to his enquiries about the discount as the injustice he claims is too speculative and is not the direct result of fault by the Council. The Council has offered Mr X £300 for his time and trouble and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Fareham Borough Council (20 011 159)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council made a refund of business rates on a rented unit to the landlord even though Mr X is the registered rate payer. The Council acknowledges it should have contacted Mr X before paying the refund to the landlord’s bank account even though this was the account from which the business rates were paid. The Council has offered to now make the payment to Mr X.

Birmingham City Council (21 000 869)

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms X’s application for council tax support. This caused Ms X injustice as she cannot be sure whether her council tax support entitlement should be backdated. The Council has agreed to the actions at the end of this statement to remedy the injustice to Ms X.

Leicester City Council (21 011 139)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to give the complainant a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Sunderland City Council (21 011 499)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council applied an empty property council tax premium of 200% and failed to communicate with her properly about the matter. We cannot lawfully question the Council’s council tax policy. The Council has now explained the position and given Mrs X appropriate information and advice.

Dover District Council (21 011 205)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax payments. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Herefordshire Council (21 011 213)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is unreasonably seeking to recover money it says it paid to the complainant from the Local Restrictions Grant Scheme when he was not eligible. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

West Oxfordshire District Council (21 002 651)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions regarding his council tax account. The Council is at fault because it issued Mr X a bill and failed to notify him of his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council has agreed to reissue Mr X’s bill and provide him with his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Council has also agreed to update its website and council tax bill letter so it provides information about council tax liability appeals.