IRRV Alert - week ending 27th May Part - 1
News
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
|
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. London Borough of Barnet (21 009 273)
Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained the Council failed to start billing them for council tax when they moved back into their refurbished property, causing a debt to build up over four years. The Council did not follow the correct process when Ms X and Mr Y told it they had moved back into the property. The resulting debt caused them avoidable stress and financial pressure, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It also agreed to restate its offer of a repayment plan and remind its staff of the correct process. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 000 055)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax debt, wrongly collected by the Council. This is because all the money has been returned to Ms X and there is no unremedied injustice for us to investigate. London Borough of Haringey (21 018 753)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 business grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 499)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants and gave him incorrect advice. The Council initially refused a Restart grant for an incorrect reason but this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice because it reconsidered the application when he challenged its original decision. Luton Borough Council (21 017 640)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery of a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response. North West Leicestershire District Council (21 018 415)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council’s error in dealing with a council tax account caused her distress. We will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is out of time and was previously considered in a separate investigation by the Council. The Council’s offer to remedy the complaint to Ms X is also a reasonable settlement of the complaint. London Borough of Newham (21 018 589)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s council tax account. The Council has already provided enough remedy. There is not enough unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate. Salford City Council (21 018 797)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability and damage to the complainant’s property. It would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. We would also expect Mr X to take the matter regarding the alleged damage to his property to court. Birmingham City Council (21 010 171)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council made an error calculating his Council Tax bill. The Ombudsman has found that although the Council did not exercise best practice, this does not amount to a finding of fault. Sheffield City Council (21 018 476)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a business rates discount brought in to help businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the issue concerns a matter of professional judgement and there is no evidence of fault affecting the Council's decision.
|
