|
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.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 801)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council sent all bills and correspondence relating to a rental property he owned to that property, rather than his home address. Mr X complains the Council was wrong to take enforcement action in relation to unpaid council tax, as he had not received the bills or been given the opportunity to pay. The Council’s failure to correspond with Mr X at the address provided amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.
London Borough of Brent (19 011 151)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly sent him a council tax bill for a property he does not own. The Council accepted it was at fault and offered a financial remedy. It agreed to pay an added financial remedy to recognise the time and trouble Mr X was put to.
London Borough of Haringey (19 016 350)
Summary: The Council has resolved Miss X’s dispute about historic arrears on her council tax account.
London Borough of Barnet (20 002 613)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax payments. The matter has been resolved and investigation would achieve no different outcome.
Daventry District Council (19 014 259)
Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of a business rates matter. The complainant did not notify the Council he had occupied an additional unit, which ultimately explains the delay in his being billed correctly. But the Council was at fault for its poor complaint handling, and it has agreed to apologise for this.
Dover District Council (20 001 710)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a long term empty property council tax charge on her property. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. In addition, Mrs Q may ask for a discretionary discount and then appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if the Council refuses her request.
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 002 855)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council caused Mr A an injustice to justify our further involvement in his case.
London Borough of Lambeth (19 014 955)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council’s decision to stop the complainant’s housing benefit and council tax relief. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right of appeal to a tribunal about the Council’s decision.
Central Bedfordshire Council (20 000 346)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s council tax exemptions policy following her application in 2013 which was rejected because she did not qualify. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about a Council’s local council tax exemptions policy.
Rushcliffe Borough Council (20 003 007)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a Council Tax discount application. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs B to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision.
Craven District Council (20 002 572)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue Miss X’s complaint about not receiving a business grant and not having her appeal considered. There was no fault in the Council refusing the grant application. The Council’s not considering the appeal did not cause Miss X a significant injustice.
Bristol City Council (19 020 823)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
South Lakeland District Council (20 003 091)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a reduction to the complainant’s housing benefit for the under-occupancy charge. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.
|
