LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns relating to the complainant’s son. This is because the matters relate to care arrangements decided in ongoing court proceedings, and it would therefore be reasonable for Ms X to raise her concerns in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in the termination of his lease agreement with his landlord. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s actions whilst issuing him a Fixed Penalty Notice for spitting. This is because Mr X could have raised a defence against the issuing of the notice in court if he considered there was fault in the way it was issued. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his subject access request because it is a data matter the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homeless and housing application. She says the Council failed to reassess her application when she disclosed her medical conditions. This is because it was reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of trees, grass and shrubbery. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice to the complainant, and we are unlikely to add anything more to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alledged failures by the Council to communicate with the complainant over council tax premiums applied to her second property. These matters primarily occurred between 2020 and 2023 and so our late. There are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion and investigate these. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council with respect to support and advice given to the complainant during the time period within our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider evidence and take action over a rat infestation from her neighbour’s property. There was no fault in how the Council took the decision to take no further action, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home. The care provider acting on behalf of the Council has accepted fault, apologised for the impact, and acted to improve future service. It is unlikely we would achieve anything further by investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council discriminated against the complainant when he raised concerns about an allegedly dangerous tree on neighbouring land. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the school transport pick-up point for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provisions outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed paying an agreed personal budget. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and pay Miss X £200 to acknowledge the impact of the missed provision. The Council was at fault for the delay in paying Miss X the agreed personal budget but it has already apologised and paid the outstanding payments which remedied the injustice caused. It has also put in place service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son (Y’s) amended Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within timescales following an annual review in March 2023. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue an amended EHC Plan until September 2024. This has caused distress and uncertainty about her son’s education and has delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council should make payments to recognise this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed change of use of a property in the complainant’s local area. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council has dealt with his family’s homelessness. He said the Council has failed to deal with his complaints that his family have been housed in unsuitable accommodation for an unreasonable amount of time. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed to provide a personal remedy to Mr and carry out service improvements to avoid a repeat.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out additional works to fix drainage problems which he says have been caused by works completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint and we could not achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in responding to requests to prune back trees and delays in responding to complaints. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Also, we consider the Council’s explanation and apology for the delays in responding to the complainant is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her claim for compensation for personal injury. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to make a claim against the Council at court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing legal proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning advice the Council gave the complainant and its decision to take enforcement action. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council lying to him about not having to pay charges for the damage he caused to a hotel room the Council placed him in. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Council delays in handling her right to buy application. It was reasonable to expect Mrs X to use the legal notice of delay procedure and, if needed, to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a disabled facilities grant application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council made him remove genuine parts from his car to renew his private vehicle hire licence. Mr X says the Council caused him distress during the renewal process. We have found fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy and remind its vehicle licensing officers to advise customers of their appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to pursue Ms X for payment of unpaid empty property premiums. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable to bring the complaint to us sooner.