IRRV Alert - week ending 6th November 2020
Information Letters
News
Circulars
Consultations
Reports
New benefits and taxation decisions
|
||||
|
|
||||
A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions |
||||
|
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 Lambeth (20 001 228)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal for some of the disputed period and could have used his appeal rights for the remaining period. London Borough of Haringey (20 001 546)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to hold her liable for business rates. This is because the courts are better placed to deal with the matter. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her landlord as they are not a body within our jurisdiction. London Borough of Barnet (19 008 834)
Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about lost council tax payments for the year 2016/2017. London Borough of Sutton (19 009 408)
Summary: Ms T complains that, when she contacted the Council for help with housing costs, it delayed in informing her she had to apply for universal credit causing her financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in failing to inform Ms T at the outset that she had to apply for universal credit rather than housing benefit. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms T in recognition of the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (19 016 474)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council wrongly took enforcement action on his council tax account. When Mr B complained, the Council used its discretion to take the account back from its enforcement agents and refunded the money Mr B had paid to them. The Ombudsman will not investigate this matter further. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Redbridge (20 001 155)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about council tax. This is because if Ms X disputes liability it is reasonable for her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Birmingham City Council (20 000 196)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council sending enforcement agents for failure to pay council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. Durham County Council (20 001 284)
Summary: Mr X complains he has paid too much council tax due to the Council’s previous charging policy for council tax on empty homes. The Ombudsman will not investigate as the law says a council’s charging policy can only be challenged by judicial review in the courts. Birmingham City Council (20 001 622)
Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her council tax account and that this caused her inconvenience and upset. The Ombudsman will not investigate as the remaining injustice to Miss X does not warrant his involvement. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 903)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint that an officer committed perjury. This is because the complaint involves matters that have formed part of legal proceedings and because the officer is not employed by the Council. London Borough of Barnet (19 013 709)
Summary: The Council has accepted it was at fault for pursuing the complainant for Council Tax she was not liable to pay. This meant she received a bailiff’s notice of enforcement, which caused her distress. However, the Council’s apology is an adequate remedy. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.
|
