Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 003 795)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Jan-2019

    Summary: The complaint is about an enforcement agent's visit to collect a Council Tax debt. And about the fees charged. The Ombudsman does not uphold this complaint.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 006 578)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with him in relation to his business rates. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council changed a repayment arrangement. The Ombudsman is satisfied the agreed action of a review of the decision taking into account income and affordability is enough to remedy Mr C's injustice.

  • London Borough of Merton (18 008 104)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained a Council enforcement agent entered his business premises under false pretences, tried to levy on goods not belonging to the debtor and harassed staff. Without any recording of the visit a safe conclusion cannot be reached about what happened on the day. The Council was not at fault for trying to remove goods.

  • Medway Council (18 006 833)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance in relation to her housing options. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Ms X's application to join the housing register, or her DHP applications.

  • North West Leicestershire District Council (18 006 144)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly pursued her son, Mr Y, for a debt he did not owe. She says the enforcement agent who visited her home was intimidating and aggressive in his manner. The Council was at fault for not informing its enforcement agency when Mr Y's debt liability reduced. Mr Y was subsequently pursued for money he did not owe. The Council has admitted it made mistakes, apologised and made changes to its procedures. It has also offered an appropriate level of financial compensation to Mrs X and Mr Y to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Gloucester City Council (18 007 953)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Council delayed dealing with Mr B's complaint about enforcement fees relating to unpaid council tax. The Council has apologised to Mr B and has offered to write off the enforcement fees and pay Mr B £100. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint because the remedy is suitable and there is no benefit in further investigation.

  • Durham County Council (17 018 997)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault for giving her incorrect information about the rateable value of a commercial premises she was proposing to lease. Mrs X complains the Council should have been aware of a change in use to the premises which carried a higher business rates liability. And the change of use meant the premises did not have planning permission for the use she wished to put it to. We found fault because the Council did not have a procedure in place to alert its Non-Domestic Rates Service about a change of use to a building even if the Council decided not to take enforcement action for a breach of planning control. But this fault did not cause Mrs X an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

  • South Hams District Council (18 002 241)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has no policy for how it grants discretionary rate relief and that its decision not to award it to his charity was based on incorrect information. The Council's lack of policy and failure to record how it reaches a decision is fault. It should now write a policy and reconsider Mr X's application under that new policy. This is an appropriate remedy as it will enable Mr X to ensure the correct information is considered.

  • Wealden District Council (17 020 215)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council misdirected itself and failed to carry out a proper review of its decision not to award discretionary business rate relief. The Council will carry out a proper review of its decision and correct its guidance.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (17 019 816)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Aug-2018

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council did not tell her about introducing a Business Improvement District and about subsequent billing issues. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

;