LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council provided to the complainant. We would not be able to achieve the outcome the complainant has asked for.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly added enforcement agent fees for council tax arrears when it knew he had changed address. The Council has agreed to remove the agent’s visit charges.

Summary: Mr X alleges attempted fraud by misrepresentation by an enforcement agent appointed by the Council to enforce an unpaid penalty charge. There was fault because the agent did not provide a warrant during a visit to Mr X’s home. The fault did not cause an injustice that warrants further pursuit of the complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell bailiffs that he had cleared his council tax liability. This resulted in an unnecessary call and visit by bailiffs. We found there was fault by the Council that warrants and apology and a payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s vehicle being clamped even though she had paid the associated penalty charges. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s online ordering system for bulky waste collection or the way it dealt with Miss X’s concerns about this. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Even if there were fault, the Council has provided a remedy and there is not a significant remaining injustice which would warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to reports of noise nuisance as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have followed the statutory process.

Summary: The Council accepted there was fault in how it dealt with Mr B when he first approached it about his housing situation. It has apologised. There is no need for the Council to take more action in that regard. There was no further fault by the Council in how it supported Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of two councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s application for a blue badge because it failed to record the reasoning for its decisions and failed to undertake a mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the process of dealing with Mr B’s complaint about the actions of Children’s Services. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and the Ombudsman’s intervention is not warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of two councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after the complainant became homeless. This is because part of the complaint is late, and the complainant had the right to request a review of the Council’s decision. If we investigated the remaining part of the complaint, this would not lead to a different outcome for the complainant, and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit overpayments. That is because the Council has not yet made a final decision whether to recover the overpayments. Any future decision is appealable to Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council using her old address when recovering unpaid council tax. We found the Council at fault in continuing to use the old address although its council tax correspondence was ‘returned to sender’. Use of the old address led to added recovery costs on the council tax debt, which Mrs X had to pay. To put matters right the Council agreed to refund the council tax recovery costs of £495.50 to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s green waste collection service. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants by investigating his complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained to the Council about disability discrimination in dealing with her over an assessment of her daughter’s social care needs. She complained to the Ombudsman that the Council refused to progress her complaint to the second stage of the complaints process but instead told her to make a legal claim. The Council has now decided to investigate the complaint at stage 2 of the children’s social care complaints procedure. We have therefore decided to stop investigating the complaint as it would not achieve any more for Ms X at this stage. Once she has completed the complaints pr

Mr and Mrs A complain the Council failed to provide the support set out in a care plan for a child in their care.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council missed several bin collections over consecutive weeks. He also complained the Council removed one of the bins and damaged another bin while emptying it. Mr X also complained the Council failed to respond to his complaint. We have discontinued our investigation because the complaint is late and there is insufficient injustice to justify investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a moving traffic offence. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent Enforcement Agents to his home to recover charges for an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice from 2019 against a car he did not own, without any notice. Mr X said the Council ignored his letters and complaint about the matter. There was fault in how the Council identified Mr X as responsible for the debt and in how it communicated with him. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to recognise the distress caused to him when it took unnecessary and avoidable enforcement action against him.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Miss X’s time in foster care in the early 1990s. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to do so.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with suitable housing even though she has been on the housing register for seven years. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.