Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Sheffield City Council (16 014 652)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Jul-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council passed a business rates debt to enforcement agents and did not recall it, or negotiate a new payment plan with Mr X.

  • Ashfield District Council (16 013 386)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for its delay reviewing non domestic rate relief for a property Mr X occupied but Mr X still owes non domestic rates. The Council has agreed to contact Mr X to arrange a repayment plan.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (16 016 157)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed considering Ms X's eligibility for discounts and wrongly requested unnecessary information. The Council has agreed to withdraw the £235 enforcement fee Ms X is unlikely to have occurred had it acted promptly.

  • Lancashire County Council (17 003 099)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the Council's charge for business rates. If Mrs B disputes liability for the charge it would be reasonable for her to put the issue to the magistrates' court. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint the Council has breached data protection law by disclosing sensitive information to a third party. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to deal with this matter.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (16 017 159)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-May-2017

    Summary: The Company complains the Council has wrongly held it liable for council tax and business rates as Receivers had been appointed. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is late and he has not seen any good reason to exercise his discretion to investigate.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 001 188)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-May-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to pursue him for unpaid council tax arrears instead of his ex-wife. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part which has cause injustice to Mr X.

  • Isle of Wight Council (17 000 995)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-May-2017

    Summary: Mr U complains the Council should have told the Valuation Office Agency of a change of use in 2008. As a result he says he has paid £20,000 to much in business rates. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as the advice was oral and there will be no evidence of what Mr U was told at the time.

  • East Dorset District Council (16 017 598)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman found some fault by the Council on Mr C's complaint that an officer gave misleading advice a few days before a period of exemption for business rates expired. The officer failed to confirm the extent of the period it covered. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Enfield (17 001 518)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-May-2017

    Summary: Mr S complains about the action the Council's has taken against him for unpaid business rates. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint as a court has decided Mr S owes the rates and has decided to declare him bankrupt.

  • Medway Council (16 010 558)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Apr-2017

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council regarding the recovery action it took against a vulnerable council tax payer.

;