|
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.
Dorset Council (21 013 694)
Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council has taken enforcement action for council tax. She says the enforcement agent wrongly attended a relatives address and questions the Council tax owed. We do not find fault in how the Council has taken enforcement action.
Torbay Council (22 013 370)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that it was racist for the Council not to accept Mr X’s sort code for a Welsh bank account. This is because it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has already said or achieve any meaningful outcome for Mr X.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 013 500)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing benefit. Mr X can reasonably use his right to appeal to a tribunal.
London Borough of Barnet (22 013 790)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overpayment of housing benefit as Mr X could appeal to the tribunal.
Leicester City Council (22 013 837)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a Council tax debt because the matter has been remedied.
Cannock Chase District Council (22 005 174)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s application for a COVID-19 business support grant, nor any evidence a Council officer harassed him during a phone call. The Council was at fault because it did not properly consider the complainant’s request for a transcript of the call, but this did not cause him an injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation.
Nottingham City Council (22 008 371)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misinformation about Council tax. This is because he could appeal the Council’s decision to a tribunal and the information provided in a leaflet was not binding.
London Borough of Hillingdon (22 013 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award his business COVID-19 business rates relief. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Thurrock Council (22 009 123)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to begin court action in relation to Miss X’s council tax debt. The law prevents us from doing so.
Cheshire East Council (22 011 554)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not resolve problems with its online application for business grants resulting in Ms Y missing out on a grant. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.
Manchester City Council (22 012 339)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s contacts with it over her wish for it to write off a debt arising from an overpayment of benefit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the decisions the Council has made, and the complainant could never achieve the outcome she wants by calling and emailing the Council. It follows we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome beyond the steps the Council has already set out for the complainant to pursue her request.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (22 013 543)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer’s communication with Ms X in relation to her council tax liability. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about how councils respond to subject access requests. We could not achieve a meaningful remedy for other peripheral issues.
Hertsmere Borough Council (22 013 789)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s entitlement to Housing Benefit. It is reasonable for her to use her right to appeal to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 008 132)
Summary: Mr X complained an Enforcement Agent, acting on the Council’s behalf, visited his address the same day he received a letter from them. He says he was charged £235 for the visit even though he had already paid off his outstanding debt that morning. We found fault by the Council for not allowing a reasonable period between sending a letter and a follow up enforcement visit. The Council has provided Mr X with an apology, confirmed the outstanding fee had been removed and taken action to prevent recurrence of the fault identified.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 424)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue an Attachment of Earnings order to Mr X’s employer for unpaid council tax. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and so we cannot question the outcome.
Dacorum Borough Council (22 013 800)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions about Mr X’s council tax reduction. Mr X used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Sheffield City Council (22 002 911)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council took enforcement action about council tax arrears she was not aware of. Mrs X said it caused stress and frustration. We do not find the Council at fault for taking enforcement action. We find the Council at fault for relying on out-of-date information. However, we do not find this caused Mrs X injustice.
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 443)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax appeal as this matter has been considered by the Valuation Tribunal and so is no longer within our remit.
|
