Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (19 010 371)

    Statement Not upheld Other 15-Jun-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's actions in recovering a council tax debt. She says she has suffered financial loss and distress. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Croydon (19 012 423)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X disputes liability for business rates as she did not receive the summons so could not dispute the bill in court. There is no fault by the Council. It sent the bills and the summons to the address liable for business rates and so acted without fault. Mrs X could also have checked her account online or by telephoning the Council.

  • London Borough of Haringey (19 005 483)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Mar-2020

    Summary: The complainant says the Council added enforcement agent fees when he had paid his council tax. The Ombudsman finds the Council is at fault. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 006 594)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains a decision the Council took on business rates liability resulted in deductions from his personal pension plan by the company that manages it. There was no fault in the Council's decision who to bill for the business rates applying to the storage units held as part of Mr X's pension fund. It took a decision it was entitled to take. There was fault in the time the Council took to reach a settled position which caused injustice to Mr X, but the Council has already remedied this by apologising and making a payment to Mr X.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 007 565)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued him for business rates. The Council sent Mr X court summons in 2016 without fault. Given the passage of time we will not investigate the circumstances of the issue of summons further. The Court determines liability orders. The Ombudsman cannot question its decisions.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (19 004 448)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council, and enforcement agents who acted on the Council's behalf, after it obtained a liability order against him for non-payment of business rates which he said he was not responsible for. The Council was not at fault. The magistrates' court issued a liability order against Mr X for the debt, and the Council passed it to enforcement agents who carried out their role in line with the relevant law.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 006 231)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of enforcement agents working on behalf of the Council. We have found fault. The Council has agreed a satisfactory remedy.

  • Coventry City Council (19 005 229)

    Statement Not upheld Other 12-Dec-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence that of fault in how enforcement agents, working on behalf of the Council, made the decision to enter Mr C's property to attempt to recover a debt owed by a family member.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (19 006 236)

    Statement Not upheld Other 03-Dec-2019

    Summary: The Council and its agents were not at fault when Mr X did not receive an enforcement notice. The agents followed the Regulations in posting the notice to Mr X.

  • Plymouth City Council (19 003 388)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Nov-2019

    Summary: There was some fault by the Council. On one occasion, it failed to apply a discount that would have reduced Mr F's Council Tax liability. However, there was no fault in how the Council tried to recover unpaid tax or how bailiffs working on its behalf, acted. The Council has already apologised and adjusted the account and does not need to take further action.