LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take prompt and effective enforcement action to prevent the anti-social activities of a neighbouring business. We found the Council to be at fault because it allowed the case to drift and there was poor communication with Mr X. To remedy his frustration and distress, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it handled Mrs X’s homelessness application, housing register application and reports of property disrepair. This caused Mrs X and her son avoidable distress and meant they remained in unsuitable accommodation that affected her son’s health. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy Mrs X’s avoidable injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council misleading him into making a planning application it will not support. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we will not investigate his complaint about delay and failure to provide information. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer on this point.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed against it to the independent tribunal.

Summary: The Council failed to arrange the provision in Mr X’s son, Z’s, Education Health and Care Plan for a period of just under six weeks. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Z, pay Z £200 and outline to Mr X what the Council’s current plan is to find post-16 education for Z that is in line with the requirements of his Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: Mrs S complained that her sister received an invoice for care charges which were sometimes above the weekly amount they were told would be owed. There was no fault by the Council. Miss X self funded her care and the Council told her that if the carers billed for increased charges, these would be passed on. The charges were also reduced when the weekly care was reduced.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adult social care service. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning applications. This is because the alleged fault is not significant enough to warrant investigation and there is no basis for us to recommend the Council refunds Mr X’s application fees. If Mr X was unhappy with the length of time taken to deal with his planning applications it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to prune overgrown trees on the boundary of Miss X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider Ms Y’s complaint, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his request for a home loss payment after he was required to leave his property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council in its role as a social landlord.

Summary: The Council has agreed to commission an independent investigation of Mrs M’s complaint at the second stage of the statutory children’s services complaints process. We consider this an appropriate response to her concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint requesting a financial remedy for issues arising from the Council accommodating the complainant in unsuitable accommodation from January 2023 to July 2024. This is because the complaint is caught by the time bar on the Ombudsman’s remit and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate. Some of these complaint issues have already been raised in court, and, where not, would have been reasonable for the complainant to raise in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council allocates its street cleaning resources across its different wards. Any alleged fault has not caused her a significant injustice. The issues she raises would be better addressed to her local councillor or MP.

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delay and poor communication by the Council. This is because the Council has apologised about its communication and any injustice to Miss X is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless case. He says the Council did not assess his complaint properly as it ignored his medical evidence that showed he was in priority need. This is because it was reasonable for him to have appealed to the county court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: The Council failed to review and issue Mr X’s son, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plans on time. It also failed to plan for the support Z would need when he started post-16 college. This meant Z missed key support he needed during his GCSE year of school, he had no record of his needs as his physical disability progressed and he avoidably missed out on post-16 education. The Council’s faults also caused Z and Mr X avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X and Z £2,500 and take action to improve it

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for her to request a review of its suitability and to provide relevant medical evidence to support that request.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missed bulky waste collection. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application and offered her unsuitable interim accommodation causing distress and impact onto her family’s health. We found fault by the Council as it delayed accepting a relief duty towards Ms X and she remained in unsuitable interim accommodation. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing her application for council tax reduction. This is because Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.