LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to put in place 24-hour live at home care, failed to consider her wishes about staying at home, imposed agency care every fourth week and failed to consider employment law when allowing Ms Y to provide 24-hour care. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council included inaccurate information in a Child and Family assessment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs B to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the harm the Council pest control measures caused to Mr X’s pet. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to an information request. This is because it is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to investigate. We will also not investigate her complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach as it is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his property was damaged during Council highway works. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the actions complained about did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and the valuation of Mr X’s home in the ‘right to buy’ process. Mr X could reasonably have taken any dispute about the valuation to the District Valuer. The Council’s apology for the delays is enough remedy for that point.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to accept a homelessness application, provide a decision or provide emergency accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it failed to follow the correct process. The Council has agreed to make service improvements, and will pay redress to Mr D.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about advice she was given on a refuse issue during a telephone call with the Council. This is because we could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of becoming his appointee and how it communicated and supported him in the process. He said as a result he experienced distress and uncertainty. We found fault by the Council for causing some delay, communicating poorly, and its complaints handling was unclear. The Council did take steps to mitigate the appointee process’s impact on Mr X. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice Mr X experienced. It will also carry out a service improvement recommendation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly explain Mr X’s care charges. This is because it relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us earlier. In addition, if we did exercise discretion to investigate the complaint, we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness and his complaint. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to investigate a private company’s use of parking warnings as the complainant is not caused a level of injustice sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her electric wheelchair hit a hole at a dropped kerb crossing. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to complete adaptations to his home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has proceeded with the installation of a new traffic management system. This is primarily because there is insufficient evidence that the complainant has been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged faults, it is reasonable to expect him to use the alternative remedies which are available, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the allotment association committee or the Council’s oversight of the committee’s complaints handling. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and, in any case, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the allotment association committee or the Council’s oversight of the committee’s complaints handling. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and, in any case, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her request for adaptations and housing to meet the needs of her disabled child. The Council took too long to consider the recommendations and it did not deal with her complaints and review requests properly. It did not properly consider its discretion to admit her to its housing register. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss X distress and uncertainty, but it is unlikely her family would have been rehoused sooner, or that the Council would have made the adaptations she requested. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to increase the cost of a season ticket for some of its car parks. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide home to school transport and its handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to question its decision not to provide transport. If Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, it is reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when removing vegetation from the complainant’s garden in 2023. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons in the delay.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council delivered support to his son. We have found that the Council was at fault, because it has not yet dealt with Mr X’s complaint properly. It will now do so. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X which recognises his injustice from delays to its complaint-handling.