LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint how the Council dealt with a noise complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations banding because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: The Council failed to meet some of Miss X’s eligible care needs, causing Miss X distress and frustration. The Council also delayed carrying out a review of Miss X’s needs, causing Miss X’s sister, Ms Y, uncertainty and frustration. The Council was entitled to suspend Miss X’s direct payments but has since failed to resolve the issues which led to the suspension. The Council should apologise to Miss X and Ms Y, make a payment to Miss X, and decide how it will meet her needs following a mental capacity assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the application date used by the Council when deciding the complainant’s Right to Buy application. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from us investigating, and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the alternative court remedy available to her.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Council Tax recovery and communication as it is unlikely we would find fault. We cannot investigate action within Court proceedings. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a data protection complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Ms X’s application to the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s council tax account, or the summons fees the Council has charged Mr X. This is because the complaint relates to matters that took place more than 12 months ago. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain earlier. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place this long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a request for reasonable adjustments. It is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We will not exercise discretion to investigate the parts of the complaint which refer to matters more than 12 months before we received the complaint. I have seen no evidence to suggest Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax as it is against a body out of jurisdiction and there is a right to pursue the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to deal with her repeated reports of mice issues and of disrepair in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for delays, with shortcomings in the action it took, and it did not keep suitability under review. This caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, carry out a suitability review, and to take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it delayed carrying out a suitability review and Mrs D remains in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to pay redress and ensure Officers are following the correct process when considering suitability review requests.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment within the statutory timescales. Miss X also complains Y did not receive suitable education from November 2022. Miss X says this caused her and her family distress and Y missed education. We have found fault in the Councils actions for delaying completing Y’s Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and for failing to provide Y with education. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to apologise and pay her a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness applications and the suitability of the accommodation provided to her. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a review of its decision he did not qualify for medical priority. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100 as a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty he suffered due to the delay.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his partner, Mr C, that they experienced persistent problems with the Council’s contractor undertaking minor adaptations needed by Mr C. We upheld the complaint, finding poor customer service by the contractor and faults by the Council in its practice. We considered these caused avoidable distress, which was an injustice to both Mr B and Mr C. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer Miss X a suitable property. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place in 2020. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the failure to properly consider her brother, Mr C’s needs before placing him in a care placement, failed to ensure the placement acted appropriately when transferring him to hospital, failed to ensure the care provider put in place support for him, failed to communicate properly with her and delayed responding to her complaint. Mrs B says the failures caused her significant distress. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered care placements for Mr C before he moved in to a placement. The Council failed to identify a new placement when Mr C nee

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Mr X’s business vehicle from a public road. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant’s child. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed bin collections. This is because the number of missed collections in the 12 months before Mr X complained to us are not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not providing information he has requested about Council spending. This is because Mr B may complain to the Information Commissioner, and if needed, appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. We will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with him when he was a child between the 1970s and 1990s. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate now.