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 Southwark (21 011 840)

Summary: Ms D complained the Council was at fault when it reviewed a decision that she was not liable to pay business rates on premises she has used since 2019, which meant she could not claim grants to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision that a third party was responsible for those business rates.

London Borough of Barnet (21 018 559)

Summary: Miss R complained the Council made errors when it allocated her payments to her council tax account, which led to debt recovery action. As a result, Miss R said she experienced distress, uncertainty and had time and trouble to bring her concerns to the Council’s attention. We found the Council caused an error, which led to the involvement of enforcement agents. It agreed to apologise to Miss R and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her.

London Borough of Harrow (22 008 061)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and bailiffs. This because the problem has been resolved.

Dartford Borough Council (22 008 573)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s council tax arrears. Substantive parts of the complaint are about events that happened too long ago or decisions that were made in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to use its policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour.

London Borough of Brent (21 017 732)

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

Buckinghamshire Council (22 001 485)

Summary: The Council was at fault for not using available information to find Mr X, when trying to recover a council tax debt, before moving to recovery action. It has already admitted this oversight and refunded Mr X’s costs. It was also at fault for failing to issue a notice of enforcement to Mr X’s correct address when it found it. This meant bailiffs went to enforce the debt, which caused Mr X distress. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and will ensure its bailiffs are properly trained in correct enforcement procedure.

North Northamptonshire Council (22 008 266)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has decided not to award a council tax disability discount. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

East Suffolk Council (22 003 856)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reclaim overpayments of housing benefits. This is because the complainant had the right of appeal to a tribunal.

Norwich City Council (22 007 227)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability and exemptions for council tax. This is because there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it is reasonable for the complaint to use that right.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 274)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a housing benefit overpayment to Mrs X. It was reasonable for Mrs X to submit an appeal to the Council and the independent benefits tribunal if it was not withdrawn.

Herefordshire Council (22 004 379)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a discount on council tax. This is mainly because the person affected has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the Council’s decisions.

Birmingham City Council (22 007 920)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly apply a council tax discount to Mr X’s account as it is reasonable to expect him to appeal against the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

Bracknell Forest Council (22 008 246)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council illegally going through Mr X’s accounts without proper consent or authorisation. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for why Mr X could not have complained earlier.

Birmingham City Council (22 007 664)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax error because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Luton Borough Council (22 007 708)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disputed council tax charge in 2017. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Sheffield City Council (22 008 115)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal his case to the Valuation Tribunal.

Westminster City Council (22 008 286)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant with exemption for business rates relief. This is because the Council has recently resolved this complaint and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

South Cambridgeshire District Council (21 018 762)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award him a Restart Grant at a lower level than expected, causing distress and financial loss. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making but we found fault in its communication. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 017 309)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision making in respect of applications for the Bounce Back Challenge Fund saying he lost out financially. While there is fault in respect of the right of review and how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints, there is no evidence he was wrongly refused a grant.