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 Ealing (23 006 046)

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

Leeds City Council (23 003 254)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax and the actions of Council officers when he attended for an interview to discuss his case. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 139)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice given by the Council regarding benefit entitlement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and he could pursue an appeal to a tribunal.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (23 005 649)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to close Mr X’s council tax account. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

London Borough of Croydon (23 005 158)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about welfare payments because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 313)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s council tax reminder service as there is no evidence of fault by the Council and, in any case, Mr X did not experience a significant injustice.

Dartford Borough Council (23 005 829)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged incorrect planning advice. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late, and we have seen no reason to investigate the concerns raised now.

Tandridge District Council (23 004 978)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed the complainant’s Council Tax. This is because the matter is out of time, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Brent (22 017 847)

Summary: Mr X complains about delay in processing his Housing Benefit claim. Mr X says the Council failed in its duty to forward the relevant documentation to the Housing Benefit Appeals Tribunal in a suitable timeframe. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. There were avoidable delays when considering Mr X’s second appeal, and further delay in submitting Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal which caused uncertainty and frustration. The Council have agreed to our recommendations.

North Norfolk District Council (23 002 074)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly charged business rates for her business premises and failed to make a refund to her. We will not investigate the amount of business rates payable for Mrs X’s business premises as this is set by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), rather than any decision by the Council. The Council has now refunded the business rates Mrs X paid, and we have decided to discontinue our investigation as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Lambeth (23 005 292)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council closed her council tax account in error and then charged her £700 when it reopened it. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.