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.

Westminster City Council (22 018 020)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in adding his business premises to the rating list. This is because the Valuation Office Agency is responsible for determining whether premises should be added to the list and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (23 009 937)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax billing because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Stafford Borough Council (23 017 262)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaint handling and council tax enforcement processes as Mr X is taking legal action against the Council for a closely associated matter.

Leicester City Council (23 018 011)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about outstanding council tax liability because Mr X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. And it is reasonable for him to use his appeal rights.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 000 962)

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

Salford City Council (23 006 968)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax arrears. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

London Borough of Croydon (23 016 940)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not complying with an order of the First-Tier Tribunal to back pay housing benefit. This is because the Council has referred the matter back to the First-Tier Tribunal for added clarity and consideration. We cannot investigate a complaint which is subject to proceedings in a tribunal or court of law.

Teignbridge District Council (23 016 958)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability, universal credit and data protection. This is because we are not the appropriate body to consider complaints or disputes about these matters.

Preston City Council (23 017 178)

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint from a landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

North Yorkshire Council (23 017 361)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of Mr X for unpaid council tax. This is because the Council has apologised, waived the debt on Mr X’s account and issued a reminder to staff. An investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 017 503)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about discretionary council tax relief because the matter has been resolved.

Durham County Council (23 018 095)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because it would be reasonable for Miss B to use her right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Leeds City Council (23 017 489)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing threatening council tax demands for liability which was disputed by the resident. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Manchester City Council (23 007 296)

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr B’s complaint about how the Council decided an application for business rates relief. This is because the courts are better placed to decide the issues complained about.

Somerset Council (23 016 235)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the Council has written the debt off and therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Medway Council (23 019 236)

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

Folkestone & Hythe District Council (23 012 510)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council backdating business rates liability for six years and not backdating eligibility for a small business grant. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Bristol City Council (23 016 906)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Council tax account and its decision to take enforcement action for council tax arrears from 2018. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

London Borough of Bromley (23 017 575)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax deduction and the Council’s handling of the subsequent complaint. There is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the council tax and it is reasonable for Mr X to use this. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints handling if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.