LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained about the Council’s delay in assessing Mr Y’s care and support needs. The Council was at fault for the delays with completing Mr Y’s care needs assessment and delays with providing him with the appropriate provisions agreed in his support plan. This caused injustice to Mr Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to take enforcement action against a breach of condition. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the enforcement matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council complete a ballot for a Business Improvement District. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in a planning enforcement investigation. The Council has apologised for the delay which I consider appropriate. I do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. I do not consider the delay in the investigation led directly to the breach of planning control being immune from prosecution.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s decision to introduce a charge for its garden waste collection service, or its failure to respond to an associated complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. I

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s waste contractors repeatedly failed to collect, empty and return his bins. He says the contractors left litter on his property and wrongly advised him they had emptied his bins when they had not. Mr X also complains the Council delayed rectifying the missed collections and incurred delays in the complaint handling process. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable frustration to him. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to secure education, and education, health, and care provision for her son. Ms B said this affected his academic, social, and emotional progress. The Council was at fault for delays securing provision for Ms B’s son. These delays caused Ms B and her son injustice. The Council will pay Ms B a financial remedy, reimburse the cost of tutoring and secure any missed provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of rats in Ms X’s garden. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council follows when serving enforcement notices. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about how Buckinghamshire Council dealt with a safeguarding enquiry about her brother, Mr B’s, supported living accommodation. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome Ms A wants.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s waste management contractor repeatedly failed to provide adequate waste collections for his property for several weeks. This caused Mr X significant inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a financial payment and service improvements to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a charge for its garden waste collection service, and the way it handled an associated complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely we would conclude that procedural fault has affected the Council’s decision, we could not change the policy, and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not using available information to find Mr X, when trying to recover a council tax debt, before moving to recovery action. It has already admitted this oversight and refunded Mr X’s costs. It was also at fault for failing to issue a notice of enforcement to Mr X’s correct address when it found it. This meant bailiffs went to enforce the debt, which caused Mr X distress. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and will ensure its bailiffs are properly trained in correct enforcement procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions because legal proceedings cover the same issues.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way in which the Council managed her housing register application. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council’s communication. There is no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision to exclude Ms X from its housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make service improvements.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about disabled accessibility to a Muslim section of a cemetery. This is because we could not achieve anything significant by investigating further.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in a statement for a court. The matter complained of is not separable from court proceedings.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed issuing her a council tax bill when she moved into a new build property. Miss B also complained the Council’s communication was poor. We found fault with the Council for its delay sending Miss B a council tax bill and for errors in its complaint responses. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy the injustice to Miss C.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a letter the Council sent to the complainant about an allegation of rubbish being left at the back of their property. This is because we do not consider the Council’s actions have caused the complainant a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she tripped and suffered a serious injury due to the Council’s failure to repair a pavement defect. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council agreeing to a week of disruptive overnight work in March 2021. This is because the complaint is late. We have not exercised discretion to consider the complaint as there are no good reasons for why Mr X could not have brought the complaint to us sooner.

Summary: We do not uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide his child (Y) with home to school transport. The decision was made in line with national and local policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a referral which raised concerns about a child’s education, and that it subsequently committed a data breach. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault I how it dealt with the referral and breaches of data protection regulations are matters better considered by the Information Commissioner's Office.