LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an application for a single person discount on her council tax bill. This is because she had a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect her to have used it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overpayment of housing benefit as there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council allowing his late sister to deal with his mother’s financial affairs even though she had special needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act when she was issued with an eviction notice from her privately rented accommodation. She also complained about the Council’s actions following her eviction. We found fault by the Council in its handling of Ms X’s case. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her payment in recognition of the financial losses she incurred, and the distress caused to her and her children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about benefit and housing application matters. Some parts of the complaint are late without good enough reason to investigate them now. Mr X could reasonably have appealed some points to the relevant tribunal. Where Mr X did appeal to the tribunal, we have no power to consider the matter. There is not enough evidence of any outstanding tribunal appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with reports of a noise nuisance from the operation of a telecoms mast. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council took too long to process his Right to Buy application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to serve legal notices on the Council, and if needed, take the Council to court.

On behalf of Mrs X, Mr Y complained the Council took over six years to forward Mrs X’s benefit appeal to the Tribunal. Mr Y said the Council’s delay caused Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamatory and inaccurate information sent to the courts up to the present day. An absolute legal bar prevents us considering matters that have formed part of court action.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s post adoption support for her daughters. This is because, since we received the complaint, the Council has provided Mrs X with a right to review at stage three if she is still dissatisfied. Therefore, we will not investigate further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr O and Mr P that the Council failed to investigate their complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. Mr X said the Council has failed to provide answers to their complaints, and it has caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to investigate Mr O and Mr P’s complaint through the statutory complaints procedure without delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council turning down Mr X’s application for a disabled person’s parking permit. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for some of the ways in which it attempted to support Mr and Mrs B ahead of a proposed adoption placement. And its explanations for other actions it took – which it has supported with evidence – are not obviously unreasonable. Consequently, it would not be proportionate to do a further investigation of the issues Mr and Mrs B raise. But the Council has agreed to take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to carry out work to a tree. This is because we could not achieve the outcome that the complainant seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not explain his company would need to apply to join an Approved Providers List to continue to work with the Council. The Council’s failure to ensure all providers were aware they would need to apply to the new APL to continue working with the Council is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her fence was damaged following a storm. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s concerns of a flag flying at the town hall in breach of the planning rules. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays to the complainant’s ‘right to buy’ application, repairs to her home and temporary accommodation. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the court remedy available to her on the right to buy issue. Concerns about repairs needed to her home and temporary accommodation while the repairs are carried out is outside our jurisdiction. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: There was no fault the Council means tested a special guardianship allowance that it was due to pay Miss X, meaning she received less than she did previously. The regulations allow for the Council to take this approach and the evidence shows Miss X was aware this could happen.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about alleged nuisance arising from the siting and operation of a telecoms mast. This is because it concerns matters we have investigated previously, matters which the Council is still investigating, a matter for which another agency is better placed, and a matter which does not represent a significant injustice to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers when events led to him leaving the family home. Investigation by us would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to support her with her direct payment account and incorrectly suspended her payments. We do not find fault in the way the Council supported Mrs X and the steps in its decision making to suspend Mrs X’s account and offer her commissioned care services. We therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters relating to his employment. This is because the Council is not Mr X’s employer and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided on this matter.