LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to inform them of the outcome of a safeguarding investigation, which caused them distress and uncertainty. The Council has accepted fault and apologised. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. The Council also delayed responding to their complaints, which was fault and this caused them further uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a service improvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning the care of Ms X’s children. The matters complained of are closely linked to matters subject to court action and we are legally prevented from investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the complainant’s allegation that a Council employee damaged her car. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to go to court if the Council’s insurers reject her claim.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the date of the next local election. This is because it is an issue that affects all or most of the inhabitants of the area.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of an easement/covenant covering the shared driveway between the complainants’ and their neighbour’s properties. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complainant’s concerns.

Mr X and Mrs Y complain about the way the Council has dealt with their requests for information. We will not investigate. This is because this complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code on which complaints we should investigate. It is reasonable for Mr X and Mrs Y to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as it is better placed to investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, the Council failed to clearly set out and explain Mrs Y’s care charges and adjustments. The Council was at fault. It will recalculate Mrs Y’s care charges for early October 2022, apologise and pay Mr X a symbolic payment for the confusion and uncertainty caused by the backdated invoices and adjustments made. It will also provide evidence of the service improvements it has already put in place.

Summary: Miss X complains about a lack of action from the Council following its decision to issue an Abatement Notice to her neighbour. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates excess delay in reaching a decision on what further action to take, if any. This caused Miss X an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance because the court is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on the complainant’s reports of parking problems in the road where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application for a discretionary housing payment as there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing a significant injustice to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in providing information to Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not removing trees on its land near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome she wants from the complaint.

Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to contact her when it did not receive her payments for council tax. We find the Council was at fault for failing to have a process in place when it did not receive Miss D’s council tax payments. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a care worker and how it was investigated. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. We also cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants; staff dismissal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an occupational therapy assessment for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to decide how to meet Ms B’s needs. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay completing the statutory children’s complaints process because we are satisfied with the actions agreed to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to repair a defective manhole cover. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council confirms the repair has now been completed. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council considered his complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in considering Mr X’s complaint, and for failing to provide a satisfactory remedy. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it considered his complaint under the process. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedies to Mr X in recognition of the distress and delay caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council refusing to remove street furniture outside his business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

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 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 court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education and care provision made by the Council for the complainant’s son. The complaint about matters between 2018 and 2022 is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. Matters which took place in 2023 and 2024 are not separable from those about which it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: the Council delayed putting in place alternative provision when Mrs B’s daughter could not attend school. An apology, payment to Mrs B, reminder to officers and provision of evidence to show the measures the Council has put in place to address the issues with alternative provision is satisfactory remedy.