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.

North Northamptonshire Council (21 008 400)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s application for a discretionary COVID-19 business restart grant. The Council was at fault because it did not explore the complainant’s requests for reasonable adjustments, but this did not cause him an injustice. It is not the Council’s fault that the various COVID-19 support schemes can be difficult to understand, and it has taken appropriate steps to mitigate this. We have therefore completed our investigation.

London Borough of Croydon (21 009 512)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council using her old address when recovering unpaid council tax. We found the Council at fault in continuing to use the old address although its council tax correspondence was ‘returned to sender’. Use of the old address led to added recovery costs on the council tax debt, which Mrs X had to pay. To put matters right the Council agreed to refund the council tax recovery costs of £495.50 to Mrs X.

London Borough of Hounslow (21 013 442)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability and council tax support. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. We will also not investigate parts of the complaint about fraud and the Council causing him to lose his business. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Lincoln City Council (21 018 536)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach by the Council and the compensation it has offered. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it, and the complainant may go to court if they seek financial compensation.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 624)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council discriminated against the complainant and will only let him pay his council tax by direct debit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

East Cambridgeshire District Council (21 017 378)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond appropriately to reports made by the complainant about her tenant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 018 060)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his application for an ‘Additional Restrictions Grant' for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Havering (21 018 094)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability and council tax support. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate this complaint about complaint handling.

London Borough of Barnet (21 018 344)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability allegedly caused by the Council’s failure to register a former house in multiple occupation (HMO) as one property. It would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal against the decision at the Valuation Tribunal. The complaint is also late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate.

London Borough of Merton (21 005 278)

Summary: Miss J complains about how the Council has dealt with her council tax support award. She says the amount it paid her was wrong. And it confused matters by changing an earlier discretionary decision to write off an overpayment. The Ombudsman’s decision is we will not look at whether the amount of council tax support was correct, as Miss J can appeal that issue. But we have upheld the complaint, as the Council’s administrative error led it to errors on Miss J’s council tax support account, that it then took some time to rectify.

London Borough of Haringey (21 016 151)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Discretionary Housing Payment because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (21 017 104)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Herefordshire Council (21 017 547)

Summary: Ms X complains about errors made by the Council to her council tax account. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Manchester City Council (21 018 010)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay by the Council to forward Mr X’s housing benefit appeal to a tribunal. This is because the complaint is late and the complainant has now used his appeal rights.

South Oxfordshire District Council (21 018 016)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to change Mrs X’s council tax banding and the subsequent liability that arose from it. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal against the bill at the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Merton (21 018 803)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting payment of council tax from Mr Y, or how the amount was affected by the Council’s decision on Mr X’s planning application for the property. This is because Mr Y had a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, he used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and there was no fault in the Council demanding council tax irrespective of what happened to the planning application.

King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council (21 011 236)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered an application for business rates relief under the expanded retail discount scheme. Although the complainant disagrees with the Council’s view, the Council was entitled to make the decision it did, and we have no grounds to criticise it. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Harlow District Council (21 011 768)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council unfairly refused her a business grant and was poor in its communications, causing financial loss and distress. We find no evidence of fault by the Council.

Herefordshire Council (21 018 306)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has calculated the Adult Social Care precept in Mr X’s council tax bill. This is because it affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area and is outside our jurisdiction.

Sunderland City Council (21 010 040)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint regarding the removal of a discount and subsequent refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault regarding the discount and because the Council has provided a fair remedy in relation to the refund. The complainant’s request for information is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

London Borough of Redbridge (21 016 464)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability. The complaint involves the start of court action. It would also be reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 231)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly closing the complainant’s council tax account, resulting in her owing £1600 in council tax. This is because the Council has agreed to issue an explanation and apology. We could not add to the Council’s investigation.

London Borough of Barnet (21 017 894)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a housing benefit appeal. The Council has already investigated and provided a remedy where it identified fault and we would not achieve a different outcome.

Preston City Council (21 018 225)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to exempt Mr X’s property from council tax liability during a renovation. This is because Mr X can ask the valuation tribunal to consider liability.

London Borough of Wandsworth (21 018 274)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover housing benefit it had overpaid. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal.

London Borough of Hackney (21 006 884)

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his claims for housing benefit and council tax reduction. We found the Council delayed for a year in revising Mr B’s claims once he had provided the necessary information. While the delay (due to the cyber-attack in October 2020) was largely outside the Council’s control, it was service failure which caused Mr B financial hardship and distress. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £200.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (21 010 196)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council passed her debt recovery on to Enforcement Agents (bailiffs) prematurely. She complains the bailiffs were aggressive and rude towards her even though she was vulnerable and suffering with the effects of long Covid. This caused her distress. We find fault with the bailiffs for a phone conversation they had with Ms X. They have apologised and no further remedy is necessary.

Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 011 318)

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of a previous complaint relating to Mr X’s Council Tax liability dating back to 2017.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 875)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint the Council is holding Mr X liable to pay council tax on a property he owns and seeking to recover the debt. It is reasonable for Mr X to use or have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Ipswich Borough Council (21 016 915)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax and rent refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we have no power to investigate complaints about rent accounts.

Vale of White Horse District Council (21 017 839)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept her student status for council tax purposes because she could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.