LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homeless application. Mrs X submitted a statutory review and she has pursued her right to appeal against the decision to the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled child protection action relating to his family. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s ongoing complaints about noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed making educational provision for the complainant’s son. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a complaint about a sitting councillor. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the complainant suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of action on the complainant’s reports of sewerage pollution in a lake close to her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to remove weeds from its land which he says have caused damage to his property. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint and we could not achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide formal education for her child until April 2023. Ms X complained the education provided since April 2023 has not been suitable full-time education. We found fault with the education provided by the Council from January 2023 to the end of the 2023/2024 academic year. We also found fault with the way in which the Council handled Ms X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £2,000 for her child’s missed education. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through its handlin

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alledged failure to allocate the complainant a larger property which is suitable for his family’s needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion and investigate despite the passage of time.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s blue badge application. Although it disregarded some evidence, it has fully explained why it did so. In the absence of any fault in the Council’s decision-making, we have no power to question the decision itself.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council disclosing the complainant’s personal information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice the Council secured during an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment. Miss X can appeal the Council’s decision here, and it would be reasonable to expect her to use this appeal right.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mr X’s personal information being aired during court proceedings. 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 what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about The Council’s homelessness decisions. Ms X has taken court action against the Council’s decisions and is currently awaiting the outcome of another review of the decisions. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings or which carry a further right of appeal to a court. We will not investigate her claim about loss or damage to stored possessions. It is reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council for negligence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered and publicised information about the COVID-19 vaccines. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs X complains the works the Council funded with a disabled facilities grant did not meet her family’s needs, and they had to live in the property for several months while remedial works were carried out. The work carried out was defective and it took too long to put it right. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to her.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs D’s complaint about how she was dealt with following allegations from her foster child. Concerns were not consistently raised with her, a serious allegation was not properly dealt with, there was a failure to follow procedures, and she was not given information about key developments with the investigation or given clear information about procedures. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her partner Mr Y’s Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). Mr Y, the planning applicant living at the same planning application address as Ms X, had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision which it was not unreasonable for him to have used.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed providing alternative provision for her child, F when he could not attend the named placement in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and refused an updated Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment. She also complained about annual review delays. The issue of alternative provision and the EP assessment are outside our jurisdiction because Miss X had appealed to the tribunal. The Council was at fault for failing to re-schedule an annual review at the start of 2023 and for complaint delays. It agreed to make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge t

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a council tax bill issued by the Council. He says the Council has charged him the full rate despite him not being in work. This is because it was reasonable for him to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if he considered the Council’s decision to end his council tax support was wrong.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of Mr X for unpaid Council tax and an alleged GDPR breach. This is because Mr X had right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and this part of the complaint is out of jurisdiction. In addition, the complaint regarding the GDPR breach is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful school admission appeals. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council excluded him from the care process for his brother, Mr Y, and that it failed to act on concerns he raised about his brother’s care and unnecessarily appointed an advocate for Mr Y. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns or in the decision to appoint an independent advocate. The Council was at fault for not properly consulting Mr Y about who to involve in his review and for not completing the review in a person-centred way. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration he was caused, pay Mr Y £200 to acknowle

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues at a swimming pool. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.