Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 034)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 21-Jun-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not entitled to Council Tax Support. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Tandridge District Council (21 001 541)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 16-Jun-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s council tax. We are unlikely to find fault in how it has dealt with her application for council tax support or in its recovery of unpaid council tax. The complainant can appeal against any decision on her council tax liability or her entitlement to council tax support.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 001 068)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 15-Jun-2021

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. We will not investigate the complaint about an overpayment of council tax reduction because the complainant could have applied for discretionary relief and then appealed to the tribunal.

Bedford Borough Council (21 000 431)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 25-May-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault for included the complainants student income when calculating council tax support. This is because it is reasonable to expert her to exercise her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Tandridge District Council (20 008 818)

Statement Upheld Council tax support 25-May-2021

Summary: Miss X complained the Council ignored that she was a joint tenant and paid her the wrong amount of council tax reduction. There was fault with how the Council awarded Miss X council tax reduction and investigated her complaint. The Council offered to write off the overpayment. It also agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy for the distress and frustration it caused and arrange affordable repayments for any remaining arrears. We are satisfied with the agreed remedies and have therefore completed our investigation.

London Borough of Bromley (20 005 880)

Statement Not upheld Council tax support 21-May-2021

Summary: Ms X complained the Council used the wrong date in a benefit appeal; failed to deal with her council tax support appeal request and failed to deal with a request to review her housing benefit claim due to changes in her tax credit entitlement causing her stress and inconvenience. The benefit appeal forwarded to the Tribunal Service was correct and based on the date stated by Ms X. The Council provided Ms X with details of how to make a council tax support appeal and she did not do this. Ms X has not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the Council not dealing with a complaint in a timely manner.

London Borough of Bexley (21 000 092)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 19-May-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an excess award of council tax reduction. This is because the complainant could have used her review and appeal rights.

Cannock Chase District Council (20 008 989)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 30-Apr-2021

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to his benefits and how it dealt with his complaint about this. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Westminster City Council (19 018 945)

Statement Upheld Council tax support 13-Apr-2021

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her correspondence about its use of marked envelopes, which caused stress. The Council admitted it made mistakes writing to Miss X. It apologised and offered Miss X a £300 good faith payment. We found the Council’s actions satisfactory, but it should provide a further apology for its poorly worded final letter to Miss X that suggested it agreed use of marked envelopes was unacceptable. The Council agreed to the further apology, but Miss X did not want an apology.