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 Barnet (22 004 847)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not properly considered whether it should award him relief on the business rates he owes. The Council are not at fault. It applied business rates exemptions where appropriate and explained its reasons when it refused.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 303)

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with discounts on his council tax account. There was no fault in how the Council applied discounts to Mr X’s council tax account or how it communicated with him. The Council did resume some recovery action before it should have done. The Council apologised to Mr X and that was a suitable remedy.

Rossendale Borough Council (23 001 651)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council changed the amount she needed to pay towards Council Tax each month. Ms X says the Council’s changes resulted in it failing to take direct debit payments causing an accrual of a large balance. Ms X complained the Council would not allow her to pay off this balance in instalments. We found fault with the Council failing to signpost Ms X to its discretionary Council Tax support or relief services and for failing to consider a discretionary payment arrangement. While we found fault, this fault did not cause a significant personal injustice to Ms X.

Salford City Council (23 007 065)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal that it would be reasonable for him to use.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 008 237)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a council tax support backdate decision as this has been dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal and is now no longer within our remit.

City of Wolverhampton Council (23 008 519)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the value of a council tax refund after a re-banding as it is best dealt with by the Valuation Office Agency.

Slough Borough Council (23 006 677)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery of a housing benefit overpayment because an appeal to a tribunal was used and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Enfield (23 007 450)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Business rates because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and he has appealed to the Valuation Office Agency (Valuation Office Agency).

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (23 008 285)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax support as the injustice caused to the complainant is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Liverpool City Council (23 006 455)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking bankruptcy proceedings against Mr X for non-payment of council tax over 20 years. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters subject to court proceedings with regard to liability orders.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 007 093)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 008 386)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X is liable for council tax. This is because Miss X can be reasonably expected to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

London Borough of Bromley (23 000 691)

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). The Council failed to consider Mr X’s supporting evidence and failed to provide appropriate and consistent explanations to support its decision not to award Mr X with a DHP. The Council agreed to re-consider Mr X’s application and remind staff to fully explain decisions to applicants where it decides not to award a DHP.

Broxbourne Borough Council (23 006 583)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly calculate Ms X’s housing benefit. This is because it concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place this long ago. Further, Ms X has right of appeal to the Tribunal and it would be reasonable for her to use it.

London Borough of Lewisham (23 007 172)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council closing Mr X’s council tax account as there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our further involvement.