A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

London Borough of Croydon (18 012 211)

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to take enforcement action when Mr B did not pay his council tax.

Westminster City Council (18 013 543)

Summary: The Council wrongly changed Council Tax liability to Mr X’s company. It wrongly took enforcement action against Mr X and his company for Business Rates. Mr X incurred costs providing evidence to the Council. The Council has poor records and did not give the Ombudsman information we asked for. The Council should apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,080 for time, trouble, distress and his expenses.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 092)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to an enquiry about a council tax discount for an annexe. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 240)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s recovery of an overpayment and its refusal to accept her offers of repayment. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she appealed to a tribunal and there is no evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of her offers.

West Suffolk Council (19 002 447)

Summary: Mrs X complains about delay by the Council in billing her for business rates on a property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the claimed injustice is speculative until the outcome of a tribunal decision.

Luton Borough Council (18 015 946)

Summary: Miss C complains that the Council refused to backdate her council tax reduction, meaning she is now in arrears with her payments. The Council was at fault in how it handled the matter. It has now assessed Miss C’s eligibility for the reduction and recalculated her bill accordingly. It has agreed to offer her a time and trouble payment amounting to the balance of her bill.

London Borough of Haringey (18 009 727)

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it calculated how much council tax to refund to Mr X.

Waveney District Council (18 018 012)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s actions in refusing to accept their evidence about why a single person’s discount should have been applied to their property. They say the Council left them no choice but to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, which they then won. The Ombudsman has decided this complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The Valuation Tribunal has dealt with the substantive issue and the reasons for Mr and Mrs X’s complaint are directly related to it. We cannot investigate something already looked at by a court or tribunal, even it was unable to remedy all of the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X.

London Borough of Haringey (18 019 176)

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to award her an exemption from council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied. There was also a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal for any further dispute.

Bassetlaw District Council (19 001 621)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has refused to backdate council tax support for the last two years. The Council has applied its policy which is only challengeable at court.

Broadland District Council (19 002 063)

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s pursuit of an alleged overpayment of benefits. She also says the Council has failed to pay her housing benefit when it should have done. Miss X has appealed to the tribunal. This part of the complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Miss X also complains the Council delayed implementing the Tribunal’s decision. The Council has now complied with the Tribunal’s ruling and so an investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more.

Braintree District Council (18 012 354)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has pursued enforcement action against him for non payment of council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (18 015 670)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council misled him about making a council tax reduction claim. As a result, he says the Council will not backdate his claim and he now has significant council tax to pay. The Ombudsman’s has not found fault by the Council.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (18 017 060)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council made him liable for Council Tax on a property he rents out as a House in Multiple Occupation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint because Mr X has a right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it would be reasonable to expect him to use it.

Harborough District Council (18 012 739)

Summary: Mrs X has complained about the actions of an enforcement agent that visited her home to recover a debt owed by her son. There is some evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Brent (18 014 762)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to stop paying housing benefit to the complainant’s tenant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Hounslow (19 001 960)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in issuing a council tax refund. This is because the complainant has now received the refund.

London Borough of Barnet (18 008 454)

Summary: Ms B complains the Council says she is in council tax arrears when she is not. A review of what Ms B has paid and what the Council has credited shows she is in arrears. The Council missed opportunities to properly clarify the situation and failed to deal with Ms B’s complaint until she chased it. The Council will apologise and pay £150 to Ms B, which can be offset from outstanding arrears.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (19 001 393)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and court costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the court costs were confirmed by the court. In addition, the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Kingston upon Hull City Council (19 001 883)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council serving a summons and liability order for council tax arrears. He says the documents are invalid because the court signature was incorrect. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which have been subject to court proceedings and are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Derby City Council (18 015 650)

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to remove a council tax exemption leading to retrospective charges. The Ombudsman’s finds the Council has taken suitable action to remedy its fault.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (18 012 119)

Summary: Mr X complains he was misled by a Council officer which resulted in failing to apply for benefit he believed he was entitled to. He also complains the Council failed to adhere to agreements about an instalment plan and used bailiffs unnecessarily. The Ombudsman will not investigate the first part of Mr X’s complaint as the events happened too long ago and it is unlikely that it could make a fair finding of fault causing injustice. The Council is not at fault.