IRRV Alert - week ending 22nd July 2022 Part 1
News
Consultations
Reports
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. Leeds City Council (21 016 780)
Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to treat two companies as linked enterprises, for the purposes of various COVID-19 business support grant schemes. We have therefore completed our investigation. Guildford Borough Council (22 000 884)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider Mrs X’s application for council tax reduction. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Lancaster City Council (22 002 746)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. It would be reasonable for Mr G to lodge an appeal at the Valuation Tribunal. Milton Keynes Council (21 011 763)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is pursuing overpayments of housing benefit going back some years. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Social Security Tribunal if he wanted to challenge the overpayment decisions. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Slough Borough Council (22 002 311)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to stop housing and council tax benefits and reclaim overpayments of benefits in 2019. This is because the complaint is made late and the complainant had the right of appeal to a tribunal. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 002 373)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council obtained a bankruptcy order at court for an unpaid council tax debt. A court considered the case and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 011 085)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision making on his business rates’ liability causing him financial loss and distress. We found fault in the Council’s communications that does not affect its decision on liability. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology and pay him £150 for time and trouble. London Borough of Croydon (21 014 243)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions undertaken to recover her Council Tax. She said she was unfairly charged recovery fees as, although with delay, she paid all her Council Tax instalments in the months they were due. We find fault in the way the Council carried out the Council Tax recovery. The Council accepted our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X. East Suffolk Council (22 002 256)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a benefits claim. This is chiefly because Mr X has used his right of appeal regarding the calculation. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider allegations of data breaches. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s position on recording telephone calls and having staff work from home. Slough Borough Council (22 002 804)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdating council tax support because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Harrow (22 000 820)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute over the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing benefit. It was reasonable for him to appeal to the independent benefits tribunal and he has now started this procedure. London Borough of Bexley (21 009 799)
Summary: We found fault with the Council in the way it handled Mrs X’s appeal against a decision to refuse her a discretionary housing payment (DHP). There was also a lack of information on the Council’s website. This caused Mrs X avoidable confusion. To remedy the injustice, the Council will review information on its website and direct officers to explain their consideration of an applicant’s case and say why they have refused an application/appeal. Birmingham City Council (21 018 994)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate a council tax claim. Ms X is appealing this decision with the Council and then has another right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
|
