LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child in need matters involving his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he was wrongly issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to award Mrs Y higher banding in 2019 and 2022. This is because this complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has not adequately investigated her complaints regarding children social services and their decision to proceed with section 47 child protection enquiries. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for care at home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate due to lack of injustice. There is insufficient evidence of injustice arising from the Council’s fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault by the Council in its handling of the planning process relating to the redevelopment of Mr X’s property. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning insurance claims for damage to properties caused by a tree. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable for the complainant to make a claim to the Council’s insurers in the first instance and then pursue his claim through the courts if necessary. Only the courts can determine liability.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in reviewing Ms Y’s care and support plan causing avoidable uncertainty. There was delay in complaint handling and a failure to provide a response, causing avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will make a payment, apologise, make a decision on funding and review procedures to minimise the risk of delay in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Miss X’s homelessness. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. It was also reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision she made herself intentionally homeless.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a decision to terminate his allotment tenancy and how the Council has handled the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the courts are better placed to consider whether the Council’s actions are libelous or defamatory and whether it should reimburse his legal costs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing documents to decide the funding of adult social care. We cannot know if there is a financial injustice until the Council completes the financial assessment. To enable that, the complainant would need to provide the information again. Although that is frustrating and annoying for the complainant, it is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation at this stage.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled matters relating to a housing application. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council deal with a medical assessment application, we can’t add to its investigation into how bids were managed, and the Housing Ombudsman is better placed to deal with complaints about the condition of the complainant’s property. Other issues happened too long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a homelessness application he made in 2016 because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve, given the lapse of time.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Councils response to his concerns about footway repair works. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome and any injustice there may have been to Mr X is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to do work to a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council removed his parking permit despite previously advising he could have a parking permit. We found fault with the Council for granting the parking permit. The Council corrected this fault by cancelling the parking permit. The Council allowed Mr X to keep the parking permit through to its expiry date. This was suitable action to address the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an allotment tenancy as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council investigated his reports of odour and fumes from a business, decided not to enforce, explained its decisions and dealt with his complaint. Even if there has been Council fault in all matters complained of,

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay removing upturned signs from the roadside. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s removed garden property. This is because there is no information to indicate the Council removed it, so we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Miss D complained her child had not received access to a full-time education since January 2023. We upheld the complaint finding some fault in the extent of alternative provision made for Miss D’s child while out of school. Also, for its response when Miss D complained about specific incidents in January 2024. We considered these faults led to some distress for Miss D and some loss of education provision for her child. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its services.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened in court.