LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his driveway has been damaged by tree roots from Council-owned trees. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to put in a compensation claim to the Council, and if needed, take the Council to court.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council agreed to proceed with the complaint, apologise to Miss X, and pay her a financial remedy for the frustration caused.

Summary: X complained the Council failed to take effective action to protect them from noise and dust caused by construction work. We did not investigate this complaint further because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application and delays in responding to the complaint. The Council refused the planning application, so we do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice on this point. The application was approved by the Planning Inspectorate which is outside our jurisdiction. Also, we do not consider the complainant suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr Y and a subsequent court decision relating to his contact with others. The law prevents us from considering the start of court action or what happened in court. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks, as only the courts can make a new decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to support his family in caring for a child they had fostered and did not provide the financial support it said it would. This caused Mr X significant financial difficulties and led to the child leaving Mr X’s care. We have ended our investigation we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in resolving issues relating to a highway improvement scheme and a Compulsory Purchase Order. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly suspended his housing account for six months and that it has refused to backdate his housing application to 2019. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its recent actions to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains about the actions of a care home. The care home was at fault in the way it restricted Mr C’s visits, in serving notice, and in how it dealt with his complaint. To put things right the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C for the distress and uncertainty its actions caused, and make him a symbolic payment. It will also act to address the faults particularly how it records decisions and responds to complaints. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mr C and provide staff training.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning refusal because an appeal to the Planning Inspector has been used.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s service’s involvement with her family. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with disrepair issues at the complainant’s property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about reports the Council prepared for court. The law prevents us investigating what happens during court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure into his concerns about safeguarding referrals relating the care of his children. The Council delayed completing the complaints procedure, which was fault. The Council investigated the complaints properly, but delayed carrying out some of the recommendations which was also fault. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: Mr F complains about the domiciliary care his wife received from Cera Homecare Ltd, commissioned by the Council. There was fault in record-keeping but this has not caused significant injustice. There was no fault in the care provided.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s report because it was used in the family court during private law proceedings between Mr X and another party. We have no remit to look at what was decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about vehicle damage. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking court action against Mrs X for the payment of a school attendance fine. The onset of court action has permanently removed our legal power to investigate this matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an increase in council tax precept set by Ms X’s Parish Council. Complains about parish councils are out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax precept as this is a complaint against a body out of jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters concerning storage containers sited on land close to a property owned by X. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because this is currently being considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body best placed to consider it. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has lied to the courts. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We will not investigate the other matters Mr X complains about, which relate to the Council’s child protection involvement with his family. This is because we have previously considered and decided

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to issues of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s school admissions appeal failed to properly consider her case when he appealed the refusal of a school place at a local school. The Council was not at fault in how it considered Ms X’s appeal. However, the decision letter contained incorrect information which is fault. The Council agreed to amend the letter to prevent future fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a COVID-19 business support grant. This is because the Council’s agreement to apologise and pay Ms X the amount of the grant provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.