LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms C said the Council failed to respond to her emails and phone calls and failed to offer her a property when she was at risk of domestic violence. The Council was not at fault. The records do not show the Council failed to respond to contact and it did offer her suitable properties. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in considering whether to house Ms C pending a review of a decision. The Council has offered Ms C £250 to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed temporary accommodation for homeless households. This is because the complaint relates to issues raised in 2018 and 2019 so it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to investigate now. The Council has also not had an opportunity to respond to current concerns about the accommodation from current residents.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council took too long to prepare an education, health and care plan for his son, X. The Council has accepted it was at fault. The fault caused Mr C injustice in the form of distress and frustration. However, it did not adversely affect X’s education. As the Council is already working with the Department for Education to improve its special educational needs systems, we have made no recommendations for systems improvements. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr C a sum in recognition of the distress the family has been caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place Speech and Language Therapy for Ms X’s son. This caused him injustice as he missed out on provision he should have received. We have made a recommendation to remedy the injustice caused. We have not investigated Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide Y with suitable education. This is because Ms X exercised her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council has shared relating to the complainant. This is because the matter is now subject to court action and the complainant’s concerns may be raised in court.

Summary: The Council acknowledged an error in processing Mr X’s application for a blue badge. It apologised to him and awarded him a blue badge. The investigation will be discontinued.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. This is because it is late with no good reason to investigate it now and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint when we are not considering the substantive issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for the complainant’s mother’s care service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and not enough justification for us to call on the Council to provide the remedy Miss B is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused him business grants and was poor in its communications, causing him distress and financial loss. We found fault in the Council’s decision making and communications causing injustice. We recommended the Council provide an apology, pay Mr X for distress, time and trouble, review its decision and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council has dealt with her complaint about housing needs and homelessness. The Council was at fault because it did not accept its homelessness duty to Miss X when it should have done. The Council has offered to pay Miss X £150 for her time and trouble and £500 for distress. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint relating to the domiciliary care package her father received leading up to his death in 2018. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take action to resolve his complaint about noise nuisance. He said the noise nuisance has been ongoing and is impacting his family life. The Council was at fault because it failed to properly manage Mr X’s case. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration and time and trouble trying to resolve his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 for the time, trouble and frustration the matter has caused him. It will also complete its investigation into his complaint and inform him of the outcome and any action it proposes to

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has responded to reports of littering and illegal parking in the complainant’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the response the Council has already sent Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in connection with the placement of the complainant’s sister’s children. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council delayed providing a care plan for her brother, Mr D. She also says the Council arranged a placement for Mr D without reading the family history. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed authorising Mr D’s care plan and it did not consult with all family members when deciding on a placement for Mr D. It has also delayed reviewing Mr D’s care plan and placement. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s contact with her child. What the contact arrangements should be is a matter decided by a court that only a court can vary, and we cannot investigate that. Investigating the remaining matter, a missed contact session, would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, D, with a suitable education for up to a year. We found the Council at fault in a number of areas and the Council agreed to recommendations to remedy the injustice the faults had caused. The Council failed to provide evidence of compliance with all our recommendations. This was concerning from a public interest point of view because our investigation raised concerns about the Council’s special educational needs department. We have made further recommendations, which the Council has agreed to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s applications for school places. It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to an independent panel and the Council has yet to decide his request that his daughter be educated out of year group.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. If Mr X believes the Council has failed to follow the appeals process it would be reasonable for him to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Tribunal.