Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 478)

    Statement Not upheld Other 02-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council sent his council tax debt to bailiffs when he had already paid. He says this caused stress, distress, and took him time and trouble to resolve. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • Manchester City Council (19 019 284)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council charged him business rates for a business he does not own, delayed resolving the matter, and delayed responding to his Subject Access Request. He says this caused stress, put him under undue pressure, and cost time and trouble. The Ombudsman largely does not find the Council at fault. However, the Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to respond to Mr X's emails within the timeframe it set out. This caused Mr X injustice. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for this. We are satisfied that this apology remedies the injustice caused. The Ombudsman will not investigate the part of Mr X's complaint about the Subject Access Request because it has already been investigated by the Information Commissioner's Office.

  • Bristol City Council (19 009 255)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision that he was not entitled to small business rate relief. The Council is at fault as it did not consider Mr X's utility bills as evidence he was occupying a business unit at the time he submitted the bills. This fault did not cause injustice to Mr X as the Council has now considered the bills and it would not have made a different decision if it had considered the bills earlier. The Council delayed in responding to Mr X's complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure which will have caused frustration to Mr X. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint which is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the frustration caused to Mr X.

  • London Borough of Islington (20 004 625)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council's enforcement agents wrongly contacted his mother about a debt she did not owe. This is because we are satisfied with the Council's proposed actions and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

  • Teignbridge District Council (19 017 183)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council held him liable for business rates while it was considering a planning decision on his commercial property. He says the delays in the planning process caused him financial loss and a loss of income. He also complains about delays in the Council's complaints handling. The Ombudsman finds no fault in how the Council applied business rates charges, but fault in how it handled Mr X's complaint. The Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused to Mr X.

  • Southampton City Council (19 015 169)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation into this complaint about the conduct of enforcement agents in pursuing a Council Tax debt. This is because the majority of the complaint is outside his jurisdiction, and he could not add anything to the Council's investigation of the remaining points.

  • Stratford-on-Avon District Council (20 003 368)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council incorrectly sent him a business rate charge for a property which caused him distress. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has waived the charge and the Ombudsman would not seek any further remedy in this matter.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 018 749)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Sep-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to contact her properly about her council tax bill and later wrongly told her she had paid off her council tax debt in full. Ms X says this meant she had to pay extra bailiffs' fees. The Council is at fault for failing to respond to Ms X's contact according to its process. It has suitably remedied the injustice Ms X experienced because of its fault.

  • Daventry District Council (19 014 259)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Sep-2020

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of a business rates matter. The complainant did not notify the Council he had occupied an additional unit, which ultimately explains the delay in his being billed correctly. But the Council was at fault for its poor complaint handling, and it has agreed to apologise for this.

  • Leicester City Council (19 018 432)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Jul-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to reject her application for Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant an investigation. Ms X also complained about the Council's decision to reject her application for Council Tax Discretionary Relief. The Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint because the Council has agreed to my recommendations to take appropriate and proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Ms X.

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.