LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mrs X’s car during works carried out by a contractor. This is because the Ombudsman cannot decide liability for damage to private property or act as an alternative to insurance claim. Further investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to the complainant. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of tenancies and property by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of a property as the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy through its internal complaints process.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was blocking access to her property preventing her son, C from accessing school transport directly outside her house. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions because it has approved the provision of two personal assistants to safely to escort C from the house to the taxi and made reasonable efforts to provide them. Neither have we found fault with the access arrangements for ongoing building work.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s advice to Miss X’s tenants after she took legal action to end her tenancy contract with her tenants. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues arising from the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the Council’s decision to end relief duty in the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council delayed awarding them medical priority on the housing register, gave them incorrect information about their priority date and the properties they could bid on, failed to consider whether they had exceptional circumstances and delayed considering their complaint. The Council delayed awarding medical priority and in backdating Mr and Mrs B’s priority on the housing register, gave Mr and Mrs B conflicting information about the status of their application and delayed considering their complaint. That caused Mr and Mrs B uncertainty, frustration and distress. A

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council did not take effective action when he complained about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the play area near his house. There was fault by the Council. Although it took action to respond Mr B’s issues, it did not liaise with the Police who were also involved, nor tell Mr B he could ask for an ASB case review. The Council took too long to respond to Mr B’s complaints and referred him to the Housing Ombudsman when he cannot use that service. The Council’s shortcomings caused Mr B frustration, but it is unlikely that the Council would have taken any differen

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an electrical wire injuring her on Council property. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the visitor parking permits he bought or the Council issuing Penalty Charge Notices to his visitor. It would be reasonable for Mr X or his visitor to use their rights to appeal to tribunal or take the substantive matters to court, and there is not enough evidence the Councils actions caused Mr X significant injustice otherwise to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disrepair in his council property and its assessment of his housing register priority. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions related to housing disrepair because it was acting in its role as social landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its handling of his requests for medical priority on the housing register.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing him penalty charge notices for a vehicle which is not his. This is because the Council has taken action to correct the fault, and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance from a neighbouring nursery business. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as Miss X could have challenged it by an appeal to a tribunal, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because he has appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her Housing Benefit, Council Tax, Council Tax Support, and a Severe Mental Impairment (SMI) exemption. We have concluded our investigation and find fault in how the Council handled a housing benefit appeal and how it failed to issue proper appeal rights for Council Tax Support decisions. The Council has agreed to our recommendations, including a recommendation in relation to the SMI decision to ensure Mrs X has a clear opportunity to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication of a holocaust memorial day event because

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to deliver suitable education or special educational needs support to her daughter while she was out of school. We have found that the Council was at fault. Although it provided adequate alternative education, it failed to find a school which could deliver her special educational needs support. This meant she did not receive some of that support for over a year, which likely affected her education and caused her distress. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled an annual review of her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council poorly communicated with her and it failed to provide Y with suitable education when he finished his placement at his previous college. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s interaction with a Councillor. This is because there is no significant injustice that would justify our involvement.