A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

This bulletin was paused during the national mourning period. For decisions published on our website during that time, please visit our website and search for the relevant council.

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 Croydon (22 001 621)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s offer to settle his complaint does not fully recognise the distress and financial hardship he experienced as a result of its failure to action a housing benefit appeal. A higher payment is appropriate in this case.

Elmbridge Borough Council (22 005 822)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X an empty property council tax premium on his property. We cannot criticise the Council’s policy on empty homes and Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he considers the Council has wrongly applied its policy in his case.

London Borough of Harrow (21 016 340)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her council tax account and poor communication. The Council was at fault for not processing Mrs X’s direct debit which resulted in avoidable enforcement action. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £100 for the distress caused and reimburse £195 for the court and enforcement action fees. The Council will review its processes for dealing with direct debits. The Council was not at fault for communications being blocked or delayed.

City of York Council (21 016 898)

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her council tax account. Specifically, she complained the Council failed to award her a single person discount and council tax support and delayed in updating her council tax account. The Council was delayed in updating Ms X’s account. However, it has apologised and offered to set up a payment plan which is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. The Council was not at fault in how it awarded Ms X single person discount and council tax support.

Southampton City Council (21 018 741)

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not respond to an official complaint. The Council’s apology remedies the injustice to Miss X. There is no fault in the Council’s response to Miss X’s Council Tax arrears, as it has written off charges and stopped recovery action when made aware of her vulnerability.

London Borough of Islington (22 000 225)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to advise her to claim Universal Credit. Instead, she pursued a claim for housing benefit, to which she is not entitled, and now has rent arrears. We found there was fault by the Council. It has agreed an increased remedy.

London Borough of Croydon (22 001 560)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor customer service and inaccurate council tax bills. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Luton Borough Council (22 002 467)

Summary: Mrs D says the Council failed to tell her she was liable to pay Council Tax over a four-year period. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely he would find fault.

Worthing Borough Council (22 005 450)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s business not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. This is mainly because is not enough evidence fault by the Council caused Mr X to be without the grant.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (22 005 787)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s application for council tax support as Mrs X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she considers the Council has not properly calculated her entitlement.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 975)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. At our invitation, the Council has now agreed not to recover the money. The complaint is therefore resolved.

Milton Keynes Council (22 005 368)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about advice provided to her by her local town council. The town council itself is not a body within our jurisdiction and although Miss X referred her complaint to Milton Keynes Council it is not responsible for the issue she has raised.

Arun District Council (22 005 791)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax band because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Thurrock Council (22 005 948)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council determined his liability for council tax because he has appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and can pursue his complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Babergh District Council (22 005 102)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for discretionary housing payments. We would not be able to establish a direct link between the Council’s actions and any damage to Mr X’s health.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (22 005 602)

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Ms X’s application for a zero-rate exemption for council tax on a property which she owns. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

London Borough of Croydon (22 005 690)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed dealing with his notification of a rent increase and failed to refer the increase to the rent officer. We are satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice mainly by ensuring the full rent increase is covered.

Huntingdonshire District Council (22 004 887)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has made mathematical errors on the council tax bill and not provided answers to the complainant. This is because only the courts can determine council tax challenges and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the Council will write to the complainant again to explain how the figures have been reached.