LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about alleged harassment and the Council’s handling of her complaints. There is insufficient evidence of fault, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner’ Office is better placed to consider a complaint about rectification of records.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the council tax premium charge on his second home. This is mostly because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 in recognition of the injustice caused. Therefore, investigation by us would not be proportionate.

Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application causing distress and uncertainty. We find fault by the Council as it failed to offer Ms X temporary accommodation after it accepted a main housing duty towards her and to carry out a suitability assessment of the accommodation she was living in then. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council making an unsuitable offer of permanent accommodation to him. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr D complains about how the Council assessed his homelessness application and says it failed to support him. I have decided to end the investigation because we cannot achieve the outcomes sought by Mr D and he has the right to pursue his case with the court.

Summary: Dr X complained the Council has wrongly charged him to replace 10 paving slabs outside his house. We find the Council was at fault for how it made the decision to charge Dr X for 10 slabs. This fault caused Dr X frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise to Dr X and review its decision.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it frequently failed to collect Mr X’s household refuse over an eight month period. It did not address the issue or respond to Mr X’s concerns in a timely manner. The Council will make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration this caused him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action in dealing with Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted disproportionately when it issued him with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for fly-tipping. We have not found the Council at fault for the procedure it followed when issuing the FPN to Mr X. We cannot therefore question the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to rectify pavement obstructions near a zebra crossing which causes issue for pedestrians who are visually impaired. I have found the Council at fault. The Council agrees to apologise to Mr D and will offer to meet him to discuss its actions in the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair charges because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter, who are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her son. Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed, for the second time, to put in place the provision for speech and language therapy in her son’s EHC Plan. The Council accepts it failed to ensure the number of sessions in the EHC Plan were provided. That meant Ms X’s son missed out on speech and language therapy provision. An apology, payment to Ms X, arrangements for additional speech and language therapy sessions, training for officers and introduction of a process to monitor issues with provision is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report the Council produced. This is because the report formed part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council calling Ms X without notice. This is because Ms X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Nor will we investigate Ms X’s complaint about information sharing and information requests because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing priority band and the time taken by the Council to offer her permanent accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided her company was liable for pavement damage. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. The courts are best placed to consider any continuing dispute over liability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because Mr X has appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the one carried out by the Council.

Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s handling of her council tax liability for a property she was not living at. She said she experienced distress and has financial costs as a result. We found no fault by the Council in how it handled Ms D’s council tax liability and recovery. However, there was some fault as it should have shared information about its Discretionary Council Tax Relief scheme sooner. The Council will apologise to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused her.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice because he has used his right to submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an empty homes Council tax premium because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council had handled his housing case, including failing to offer him suitable long-term accommodation, properly consider the medical needs of the household, Mr B’s caring responsibilities or serious health risks facing the family and failed to properly consider his complaint about these matters. We cannot investigate matters relating to Mr B’s appeal to the County Court and we have not found fault with the remaining issues.

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