Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Upheld Council tax 20-May-2019
Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not issue a second reminder to Mr X when he stopped paying his Council Tax. But this did not cause significant injustice to Mr X. The Council is not at fault for not recalling Mr X's account from the enforcement agent when he made a Council Tax payment. Mr X did not pay the full amount due so the enforcement agent is not at fault in visiting Mr X after he made the payment.
Statement Upheld Council tax 15-May-2019
Summary: Ms C complained the Council's enforcement agents wrongly visited her property to enforce a debt when she had kept to the payment plan. There was no fault in carrying out a visit. However, the bailiff then failed to deal with the complaint properly and failed to investigate what had happened to a payment Ms C had made. The Council also failed to investigate properly. That led to Ms C having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and facing enforcement costs she may have been able to avoid. Repayment of an amount to reflect the enforcement costs and a small payment to reflect Ms C's time and trouble is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Statement Upheld Council tax 14-May-2019
Summary: Mr K complained the Council should not have sent a summons for council tax arrears because it failed to respond to his correspondence. He says this could affect his credit rating. The Ombudsman's decision is that the Council's proposed remedy is appropriate.
Statement Upheld Council tax 13-May-2019
Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it assessed her claim for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support and Discretionary Housing Payment causing her distress. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and made a suitable payment to Ms X in recognition of the distress caused. So, we have completed our investigation.
Statement Upheld Council tax 10-May-2019
Summary: Mr B says the Council was at fault for maladministration of council tax charges on his late wife's house, for making unjustified charges for summonses to his daughter and wife and for a failure to provide information on council tax rules and charges. The Council has refunded court costs. It provided sufficient evidence of such costs to the court. However, it wrongly closed Mrs B's council tax account. This was fault for which it has already apologised.
Statement Not upheld Council tax 10-May-2019
Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has not dealt with his Council Tax properly, because it hasn't given him a single person discount, didn't take account of difficulties he faces in paying his Council Tax, didn't give him notice about attachment of earnings orders and didn't respond fully to his complaint. There was no fault by the Council.
Statement Upheld Council tax 08-May-2019
Summary: Mr C complains that the Council pursued council tax enforcement, despite him providing information which showed his debt had not been calculated accurately. The Council was at fault in how it handled his appeal, and this led to extra costs being added to the debt. The Council has agreed for these costs to be removed and to offer a financial remedy to Mr C for his time and trouble.
Statement Not upheld Council tax 03-May-2019
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's recovery of business rates for a property her business occupied. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her correspondence, then wrongly proceeded with recovery action at her mother's home. There was no fault by the Council in the action taken.
Statement Not upheld Council tax 30-Apr-2019
Summary: Mr E complains the Council communicated poorly when collecting council tax from him, causing confusion and leading to it adding unnecessary costs to his bill. We do not uphold this complaint finding no or insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its billing or recovery of council tax from Mr E.
Statement Upheld Council tax 29-Apr-2019
Summary: Mr D complains about the Council's recovery action for Council Tax and Housing Benefit debts. The Ombudsman has found fault with both issues, because of problems with holding recovery and sending communications to the wrong address. But the Council has accepted fault and offered Mr D repayment arrangements that are more generous than usual standard schedules. The Ombudsman's view is this means there is insufficient injustice to warrant a further remedy.