This will be our last bulletin for a while...
This will be the last weekly bulletin for a while because we paused our investigations at the end of March to protect the capacity of councils and care providers to respond to the Covid-19 crisis.
We are now accepting new complaints and have resumed paused investigations. But because there is a gap between us completing and publishing cases, there are no new cases being published at the moment. We will issue these bulletins again when new cases are being published.
Please note: our decisions are published three months 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 Croydon (19 012 423)
Summary: Mrs X disputes liability for business rates as she did not receive the summons so could not dispute the bill in court. There is no fault by the Council. It sent the bills and the summons to the address liable for business rates and so acted without fault. Mrs X could also have checked her account online or by telephoning the Council.
Chichester District Council (19 019 443)
Summary: The complaint is about the Council charging extra council tax on an empty property. The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint. This is because the Council’s overall decision to charge extra council tax in its area can only be challenged in court and because Mr X can appeal to a tribunal if he thinks the Council has wrongly calculated his council tax liability.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (19 019 419)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a council tax bill for an empty property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and if Mrs X disputes liability, it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal.
London Borough of Newham (19 019 581)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council assisted her with her council tax account. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant person injustice to Mrs X. This is also a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Gosport Borough Council (19 020 131)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr P’s complaint about council tax payments and an attachment of earnings. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr P to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he is unhappy with the Council’s decision.
Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 011 225)
Summary: Mr B complained about the time taken by the Council to recover a very old council tax debt. We cannot find fault with the Council’s actions.
North Somerset Council (19 014 271)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s decision to pursue an attachment of earnings order has not taken account of her ability to pay and caused further financial hardship. The Council says it has included all expenditure claimed by Ms X but the evidence provided does not support this. The Council has now cancelled the attachment of earnings order and sent Ms C a new income and expenditure form to complete. This is an appropriate remedy.
Worthing Borough Council (19 019 228)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his council tax support. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
Brighton & Hove City Council (19 018 372)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the complainant can contact the Information Commissioner.
Cambridge City Council (19 018 538)
Summary: The complaint is about the Council asking Ms X to repay housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint because of Ms X’s right to appeal to a tribunal. In the event, the Council has now decided not to ask Ms X for the payment.
South Cambridgeshire District Council (19 019 081)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about business rates. This is because the matter has been to court so the law prevents the Ombudsman investigating it.
City of London (19 018 377)
Summary: A business owner complained that the Council had unreasonably refused her application for hardship relief from business rates. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Broxbourne Borough Council (19 018 488)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has made its decision, and so we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.
Havant Borough Council (19 019 248)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant council tax support. This is because if Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision it is reasonable for him to appeal to a valuation tribunal.
|
