Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Other archive 2020-2021


Archive has 43 results

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 012 049)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q's complaint about the Council's refusal to give him small business rates relief for premises he bought in 2020. The Magistrates' Court is better placed to decide whether Mr Q is liable for business rates for the premises.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 005 250)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council wrongly held her liable for business rates. This is because disputes over liability for business rates are more appropriate for consideration by the magistrates' court.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 015 728)

    Statement Upheld Other 12-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault due to its bailiffs overcharging Miss V more than she was liable for in council tax arrears. This caused Miss V an injustice, but the Ombudsman is satisfied with the actions of the Council and bailiffs in remedying this.

  • Southampton City Council (20 008 816)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council refused to award his company small business rate relief. This is because this issue hinges around a question of liability which only the courts can determine.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 444)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to revoke his company's small business rate relief. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault and it agreed to provide a remedy.

  • Cornwall Council (20 010 400)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about paying council tax for his holiday let. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 003 530)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained that he arranged to clear his council tax debt but despite this, his case was passed on to the enforcement stage. He also complained of threatening behaviour by the enforcement agent and his vulnerability was not considered. We find fault because the Council's enforcement agent failed to act on Mr C's claim of vulnerability. However, this did not cause him a significant injustice. There is further fault as the enforcement agent failed to respond to Mr C's email and it incorrectly increased the amount he owed. The enforcement agent apologised to Mr C and corrected his account. The Council has also now waived the outstanding enforcement fees. This is a suitable remedy.

  • St Albans City Council (19 019 465)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jan-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council should not be pursuing her for business rates debts that relate to her company. We found the liability for business rates was outside our jurisdiction. We found no fault in another area of Miss X's complaint. The Council did delay its response to Miss X's complaint but its apology was a reasonable remedy for this.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 008 858)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Jan-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about costs he incurred after the Council pursued him for business rates. This has been dealt with in court and so we have no legal remit to consider this matter.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 017 213)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained an enforcement company, acting on behalf of the Council, charged her for a visit to her property it did not make. Mrs C felt harassed by the enforcement company and found the messages it sent her threatening. We found fault with the Council causing injustice. On the balance of probabilities, the enforcement company charged Mrs C an enforcement fee for a visit it did not make and sent her misleading messages. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, make a payment for distress and review how it monitors the enforcement companies it uses.