New benefits and taxation decisions

A weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks 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 (22 017 585)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Ryedale District Council (22 011 416)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council’s housing benefit decision as there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Enfield (22 016 701)

Summary: A man complained about the Council’s refusal of his application for Discretionary Housing Payments. But we will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Westminster City Council (22 016 942)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit. It is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the tribunal if she disagrees with the Council’s decision. We will not investigate how the Council responded to Miss X’s request for an appeal as there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation.

North East Lincolnshire Council (22 017 168)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing Mr X with a summons following its issue of a council tax bill to his old address. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Preston City Council (22 017 287)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council took legal action regarding Council tax as the matter is out of time, could be appealed, and has been remedied.

West Suffolk Council (22 017 382)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Social Entitlement Chamber.

Bristol City Council (22 009 442)

Summary: A man complained about the Council’s unreasonable delay in awarding disregards and a band reduction to his council tax account. But we will not investigate this matter because the Council has now applied the disregards and reduction, and we could not achieve a better outcome than that.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 013 779)

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault as officers gave him wrong information, so he was issued with a summons for non-payment of Council Tax causing distress. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Mr X and taken action in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation.

Torbay Council (22 015 734)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments as the matter has been remedied.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 002)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments because there is no evidence of fault and he can appeal any dispute about liability or discounts.

St Albans City Council (22 017 122)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay by the Council in issuing him a business rates account number in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and any delay did not affect Mr X’s eligibility for the COVID-19 small business grant or cause him significant injustice.

Telford & Wrekin Council (22 017 187)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there was a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 539)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly continued with bailiff action after he paid off his business rates debt. Further he says it sent notice of the debt to the business address but did not contact him directly. The bailiffs are at fault for incorrectly calculating their fees. The Council has taken action to prevent recurrence.

Sevenoaks District Council (22 016 981)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s calculation of Council Tax reduction on Mr X’s account. It is reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he wishes to challenge the percentage of reduction applied.

London Borough of Croydon (22 017 114)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s housing benefit. There is not a good reason for the delay in him bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.

London Borough of Barnet (22 017 447)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Birmingham City Council (22 010 288)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has made an incorrect decision on Ms X’s council tax liability as Ms X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about this.

Birmingham City Council (22 012 156)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears which the complainant disputes. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Harlow District Council (22 012 497)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council allocated Miss X’s council tax payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Shropshire Council (22 016 259)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ‘s recovery of council tax arrears from Mr X. It was reasonable for him to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and he received a decision from it in 2022.

London Borough of Bromley (22 016 664)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused her application for a COVID-19 business grant in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

London Borough of Croydon (22 016 736)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Miss X’s request for council tax reduction and about delays in the Council processing her request. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy to injustice caused by the delay in processing her request.

Hastings Borough Council (22 016 959)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems Mr X experienced claiming the Government’s energy rebate payment from the Council as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him to warrant our further involvement.