A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Liverpool City Council (18 010 338)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her council tax. She says she should only pay council tax for one property but the Council sent her bills for several properties. She says this caused her financial hardship. The Ombudsman finds fault which did not cause Ms X an injustice.

Durham County Council (18 017 818)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about council tax. The Council has amended her bill and the complaint is resolved.

Darlington Borough Council (18 018 610)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax bill. Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and the complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s legal remit.

London Borough of Ealing (18 018 837)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council charging his wife council tax when he says she should not be liable because he is a student. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X’s wife to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal which is the proper authority to decide liability and exemptions from council tax.

London Borough of Wandsworth (18 009 838)

Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed processing her discretionary housing payment applications and failed to award an amount to cover her full rent. There is no fault in how the Council calculated how much to provide as a discretionary housing payment. The Council delayed processing some of Miss B’s applications which led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and caused her stress due to rent arrears. An apology and payment to Miss B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Luton Borough Council (18 011 638)

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council misled her regarding a council tax exemption. She said this meant she had to pay a significant amount. The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council.

Cornwall Council (18 017 800)

Summary: Ms X complains about legal action taken by the Council to recover arrears of business rates. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a matter for the court. Further any liability for council tax could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Forest Heath District Council (18 018 553)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a council tax discount because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Torbay Council (18 018 564)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s decision to bill him for business rates for a beach hut he rented. Another body was better placed to decide whether he was liable.

London Borough of Ealing (18 018 787)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to Valuation Tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (18 011 576)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council started paying housing benefit directly to him without telling him. He says because of this, he spent this money on other things. He also complains that the Council did not log his complaint. He says he spent time and trouble resolving his complaint. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council which caused Mr X injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy the faults: it has apologised to Mr X, addressed faults with individual staff members, raised the issue with its software provider, and will review its procedures with staff to ensure consistency across departments.

Mid Sussex District Council (18 018 354)

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his business rates payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Nor is there sufficient injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.

London Borough of Hounslow (17 013 901)

Summary: Mr K complains the Council mishandled his housing benefit claim and that this led to his being evicted from his home. The Ombudsman considers there is fault by the Council because it failed to apply a disability premium. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Plymouth City Council (18 013 928)

Summary: The complainant says the Council has refused to investigate her complaint about its enforcement agent’s refusal to reach an instalment arrangement. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The enforcement agents the Council uses act on its behalf and the Council should investigate complaints made about them. The Council has agreed to apologise, investigate her complaint and review its procedures.

Plymouth City Council (18 013 949)

Summary: The complainant says the Council has refused to investigate her complaint about its enforcement agents’ actions. The Council is at fault. The enforcement agents the Council uses act on its behalf and the Council should investigate complaints made against them. The Council should apologise, investigate her complaint and review its procedures.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (18 016 857)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to recover unpaid council tax. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council as the complainant has not paid what the law requires.

Wiltshire Council (18 017 942)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax band because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 018 092)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to treat as income, for a housing benefit claim, pension payments the complainant does not receive. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Cheshire East Council (18 018 149)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate a tenant’s housing benefit. This is because an appeal against the decision has already been submitted to the Social Entitlement Chamber tribunal.

Durham County Council (18 018 895)

Summary: Mr X, a developer, complains that the Council has sought to hold him liable for council tax on properties before they are complete. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Trafford Council (18 006 807)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council made an error when calculating the council tax reduction they should have. There was fault by the Council. It agrees to review its policies and consider whether to grant any discretionary council tax relief. It also agrees to pay Mr and Mrs X £200 in respect of the time and trouble they spent complaining.

London Borough of Barnet (18 018 268)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council placing a large housing benefit overpayment on her account. She disputes the claim that the Council was not informed of the change in her circumstances earlier. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal the decision to the independent benefits tribunal which is the proper authority to consider these matters.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (18 018 357)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a Council error which led to the complainant wrongly receiving a court summons for council tax. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.