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.

London Borough of Bromley (22 015 408)

Summary: We found fault on Mr C’s complaint about the Council failing to respond to evidence he submitted for his housing benefit claim. This caused no injustice. There was no fault on his complaints about it failing to make adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, wrongly demanding he refund an overpayment, or not communicating properly with him.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 002 542)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council gave Mr X incorrect advice about help available in respect of business rates. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Bassetlaw District Council (23 002 833)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax reduction as he could appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Nottingham City Council (23 002 902)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of enforcement agents as the complainant has withdrawn his complaint.

Gloucester City Council (23 001 013)

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

Ashford Borough Council (23 002 504)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears through the magistrates court. We have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about matters which have been subject to court proceedings.

Manchester City Council (23 002 140)

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to pay housing benefit directly to Mr X as a landlord in 2019-2020. This complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Adur District Council (23 002 363)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing authority’s failure to contact Universal Credit regarding Mr X’s tenancy. We have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about social housing landlords.

London Borough of Croydon (23 003 232)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s council tax account. This is because it concerns her liability for council tax and she has already used her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Elmbridge Borough Council (22 013 669)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council dealing with Miss X’s request for a breakdown of her council tax arrears. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 001 902)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Mr X’s application for the essential living fund. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

London Borough of Bromley (23 001 975)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handles cheques for paying council tax because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.