IRRV Alert - week ending 30th December 2022
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. Tewkesbury Borough Council (22 009 430)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not reducing Mr X’s council tax liability to zero. This is because it is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Breckland District Council (22 010 016)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not paid the £150 energy rebate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Redbridge (22 010 195)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to refund Council Tax payments to Miss X. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s actions. Birmingham City Council (22 010 575)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax support. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 008 247)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change the names on the council tax accounts for two properties. This is because it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Northumberland County Council (22 009 979)
Summary: We cannot investigate this council tax complaint because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Southend-on-Sea City Council (22 004 877)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not backdating a discretionary housing payment. This is because the Council has now agreed to backdate the payment. Mendip District Council (22 004 995)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with council tax support and payments on outstanding council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Bedford Borough Council (22 010 007)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Dr X’s partner’s application for council tax reduction. This is because the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as she has used her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. London Borough of Southwark (22 010 033)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council overcharging Mr X for council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Valuations Tribunal. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 009 140)
Summary: We will not investigate this housing benefit complaint because there are appeal rights the complainant can and has used. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 009 790)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about repayment arrangements for a Housing Benefit debt. The substantive matter is now resolved. Investigation could not achieve significantly more. London Borough of Lewisham (22 003 435)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax billing because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 009 554)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay compensation in relation to a housing benefit overpayment the complainant successfully challenged at the tribunal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
|
