We Publish For the First Time - The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Benefits and Taxation Decisions

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, formerly the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is a service that investigates complaints from the public about councils and some other bodies providing public services in England. The Ombudsman also investigates complaints about registered adult social care providers.

This is weekly update on benefits and taxation decisions. Transparency creates fairer decisions and better outcomes. 

ABC Note: What to do if you are unhappy, First try and resolve the issue with the organisation involved. Put you grievance in writing. If you do not get a satisfactory response, then we suggest you take your complaint to the ombudsman. 

 Maidstone Borough Council (17 013 308)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint there was fault in the way the Council dealt with her claim for housing benefit. This is because, if her complaint remains unresolved, it is reasonable to expect her to use her right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Reading Borough Council (18 013 219)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a council tax exemption, and council tax dispute, because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Gloucester City Council (18 013 531)

 Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit overpayment. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X had a right of appeal to a Tribunal.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 013 585)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council will not add her son’s name to their council tax bill as there is no indication of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Southwark (18 009 789)

 Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion not to further investigate Ms P’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with 2 housing benefit appeals against decisions to recover overpaid benefit. This is because we cannot provide the remedy she seeks.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 449)

 Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his claims for housing benefit and a discretionary housing payment. Part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council on other parts of the complaint. Mr X may complain to the Information Commissioner about a data breach. And a body complained of is not within our jurisdiction.

Brighton & Hove City Council (18 002 960)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this council tax complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because he cannot investigate court decisions.

Sunderland City Council (18 007 826)

 Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s Welfare Rights Service failed to support him in his benefit appeals. Mr X states the lack of support lost his appeals and resulted in him receiving lower benefits. The Council is not at fault.

Corby Borough Council (18 009 986)

 Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s recovery of council tax and its handling of her complaints. She also questions the certification of the enforcement agents. Miss X says she is struggling financially. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s recovery action. It finds the Council failed to follow its complaints process and recommends it takes action to remedy this. The Ombudsman will not investigate the background of the enforcement agency as the Court is better placed and because any fault did not cause Miss X injustice.

London Borough of Croydon (18 012 229)

 Summary: A man complained about the Council’s inadequate response to his request for a council tax discount, and about the way an officer spoke to him on the telephone about this matter. But the Ombudsman does not have sufficient grounds to start an investigation of the complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused an injustice to warrant our involvement, and it is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (18 012 944)

 Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably instructed bailiffs to recover a council tax debt despite his regular payments to the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been settled.

Birmingham City Council (18 013 385)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated the complainant’s council tax support. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Kingston upon Hull City Council (18 013 551)

 Summary: Miss X complained about the Council recovering an overpayment of housing benefit. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the overpayment to the independent benefits tribunal which is the proper authority to consider these complaints.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (18 013 639)

 Summary: Miss X complained about the Council failing to return her driving licence which she says she posted for identification purposes. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

London Borough Of Brent (18 013 673)

 Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has unreasonably sought to recover an overpayment of housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because she has appealed to a tribunal.

Trafford Council (18 003 970)

 Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to pursue her ex-partner for council tax arrears they were jointly liable for. The Council has pursued both parties for the debt. There is no evidence of fault.

Canterbury City Council (18 012 767)

 Summary: Ms B complains about the wording used by the Council in letters sent to her about her Council Tax liability. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B.

Arun District Council (18 013 247)

 Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her council tax account and discounts. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and any disputes about discounts are matters for the Valuation Tribunal.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 607)

 Summary: The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with his Council Tax account. This is because we cannot investigate complaints where someone has appealed to a Tribunal. The Magistrates’ Court has considered Mr X’s Council Tax liabilities. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

Wakefield City Council (18 012 348)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way the Council has handled her father’s council tax support and housing benefit. This is because it would be reasonable for her father to use his right to appeal against both issues to a tribunal.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (18 012 992)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment from 2011 to 2013. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

London Borough of Haringey (18 013 262)

 Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his homeless application in 2014 and its decision to add overpayments to his housing benefit claim in 2016. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because he could have appealed against the homeless decision to the court and against the overpayment decisions to the Independent Benefits Tribunal.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 447)

 Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about action the Council took because the complainant made late council tax payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Mid Devon District Council (18 013 584)

 Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a decision by the Council on the complainant’s council tax reduction. The complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision.

Brighton & Hove City Council (17 002 670)

 Summary: There was minor fault by the Council in the information it gave a debtor about an Attachment of Earnings. It did not result in significant injustice. The Council’s actions in respect of debt recovery in this case were not otherwise affected by fault.

ABC Comment, have your say below: