LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax discount because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of double yellow lines outside the complainant’s business. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the complainant’s possessions while she was homeless. This because the problem has been resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disputed council tax bill as Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s use of a contact centre. The matter complained of is closely linked to decisions about contact and residence of a child that were subject to court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any outstanding injustice is insignificant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to share her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan with their college, contributing to a breakdown in the placement. Miss X also complained the Council failed to put alternative provision in place, failed to communicate properly and did not properly respond to her complaints. We have found the Council acted with fault. This led to Z missing education provision and caused avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble for Z and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Z and pay a financial remedy in recognition of Z’s missed

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax payment arrangement. This is because the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Miss X used her right to submit an out of time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Although unsuccessful, we cannot consider the matter as well.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with burial rights properly, causing avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had failed to take adequate care of her belongings when she went into temporary accommodation in November 2022. When she moved into permanent accommodation in July 2024, she discovered her belongings had been lost. We found the Council was at fault for not confirming the storage arrangements in writing and not responding to communication from Ms B. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms B £500.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care costs. The Council followed the correct process and asked for information it considered necessary to make its decision. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find enough evidence of fault, add to the Council's investigation, or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time it took the Council to assess a housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is failing to maintain a local road. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue this matter at court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he was incorrectly advised by the Council to seek a Parental Responsibility Order. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion now.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly carry out a child in need assessment in 2021 and wrongly declined to carry out assessments in 2022. She complained this led to a long delay in properly assessing their needs as a family and a delay in providing respite support. She also complained there was a delay in providing Direct Payments once support was agreed. A statutory investigation upheld the complaint and achieved a proper assessment for Ms X. We found there was fault by the Council and that there was outstanding injustice that warranted a remedy. We recommended an apology an

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

Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for delay and poor communication in its handling of Mr X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. The Council’s actions in response to Mr X’s complaint are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. We have not, therefore, made any recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inspections carried out by the Council under the Building Regulations. We consider an investigation will not lead to a worthwhile outcome. Also, we will not investigate a complaint about the Council withholding information. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the hours to access the Books of Remembrance at its crematoria. We consider an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to consider a payment arrangement for an outstanding council tax debt, or his request for discretionary relief. The Council has asked the complainant to complete the necessary form so it can consider this issues raised. It is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided by a Council commissioned care provider, and that it cancelled his care package at short notice and accused him of harassment. The Council was at fault for an omission in the support plan. It has already apologised for this. It was also at fault for not specifying notice periods in the contract with the care provider. This meant the provider was entitled to end the care package under the contract. The Council has agreed to apologise for the distress and frustration caused to Mr X. It has already amended its contract arrangements to prevent recur