LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education and special educational provision for her child, and ignored her complaint. She said her child has missed out on education, which impacted their mental health and wellbeing. She said it caused unnecessary distress and frustration. We do not find the Council at fault for the way it handled the child’s education. But we find the Council at fault for its complaint handling, which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s use of his personal data. This is because Mr C may complain to the Information Commissioner, who is in the best position to decide the matter.

Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under the statutory process for complaints about children’s services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a teacher. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider the actions of teachers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council recovering unpaid council tax from the executors of a previous account holder. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for the executors to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if they dispute personal liability for the debts belonging to the estate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a fence. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his 2022 claim for compensation. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now, two years later.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault and the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has considered post adoption support payments. The Council has accepted it has underpaid the complainant. It has agreed to back pay the financial support owed. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate personal data held by the Council. This is because there is another body better placed to investigate this complaint. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body set up to uphold information rights and can help with the ‘right to rectification’ of inaccurate or incomplete data.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of its bushes next to her garage. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. Even if there were fault, the matters complained of do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Miss X to justify an investigation. It would be reasonable for her to pursue any property damage claim with the Council’s insurer, then at court if required.

Summary: Mr D says the Council has failed to investigate his complaint about a Council Officer. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation because there is no evidence of fault, and the Council has agreed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response after the complainant reported an untidy house in his road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about overgrown trees in a cemetery and an alley. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a comment made by a Council officer during a telephone call. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to support her when her niece (Y) was placed in her care. We find fault with the Council for refusing to consider Mrs X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Mrs X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, to make a payment to recognise time and trouble when pursuing Mrs X’s complaint and to carry out the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will also provide some training to its staff dealing with the Children Services complaints.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing a stage two complaint response within one month.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the overgrown state of the alley behind Mr X’s house. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to approve housing which allowed for sewage to be dealt with via a package treatment plant rather than connection to the main sewer. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because ongoing pollution of a beck caused by sewage from the properties is a matter for the Environment Agency to address and not the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s application for assistance to replace rotten wooden windows in his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the complainant’s property from a council owned tree. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to go to court to determine any liability owed by the Council for the claimed injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council planting a micro-forest near the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate anti-social behaviour from his neighbour. The Council was at fault for failing to consider all available options, for delaying looking into support for the alleged perpetrator, and for failing to regularly send Mr X’s CCTV evidence to the estate agent who managed the property the alleged perpetrator rented. The Council agreed to provide a remedy for the uncertainty its faults caused.

Summary: In January 2022 we upheld a complaint against the Council and it agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. The Council was at fault as it delayed completing an agreed action by three months. It has now completed the agreed action but should apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay.