LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refuse workers repeatedly leaving his neighbour’s bin in front of his driveway. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action in response to Mr X’s complaint and there is nothing further we would add or recommend.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y’s complaint about an additional charge made for on-site services at their Council-run extra care housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaints about suffering noise from a dog barking and anti-social behaviour. This is because the complaint is late - about what happened from 2020 to 2023 - and there are no good reasons for us to investigate now.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to comply with our recommendations to review her priority under the housing allocation scheme following her previous complaint. We found the Council has fulfilled our recommendation to reassess Miss X’s priority based on overcrowding.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for a retaining wall, and the lack of response from building control when the complainant raised subsequent concerns about the wall’s safety. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the planning application decision, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council latterly considered the safety concerns he raised.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears from 2022 onwards. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: The Council was at fault as it delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Miss X’s child Y. It was also at fault as it did not properly consider its alternative provision duty when Y was not in school and it poorly communicated and handled Miss X’s complaint. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its faults. It will also report back to us on the steps it will take to avoid similar issues from happening again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to respond to adult social care concerns through its safeguarding process. Although this caused frustration and upset, it is not significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council responded to concerns through its complaint process, and regularly reviews the care package.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with education after a mental health crisis. I find no fault. While Ms X’s child has not been able to access much in the way of education, this is not because of fault by the Council. The Council has offered a full range of educational provision in and out of school, but Ms X’s child has not been able to benefit from it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint after a school said it could no longer meet his child’s needs. This is because the complaint is made late. I will not investigate the Council’s decision to name a new school and the provision in place following this decision. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr D complained, on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision to grant her neighbour planning permission for extensions and works to a property, including how she was notified about the development. She said the development caused her distress and impacted her residential amenity. We found no fault in how the Council notified Mrs X, considered the planning application, or responded to her complaint. It therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not responding to her subject access request. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a homelessness situation. There is not enough of fault to justify investigating, and Miss Y had appeal rights that it was reasonable for her to exercise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Housing Benefit payments. This is because the Council have already responded to Mr X and it is unlikely that we could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking responsibility for cleaning land it owns which borders her property, and failing to clean it. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in not taking responsibility for its land to warrant investigation of that issue. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to warrant investigating. Investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register and disrepair in his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because we cannot investigate complaints of disrepair when the landlord is a council.

Summary: Ms C complained that the Council failed to properly consider her medical conditions in refusing her request to bid on bungalows or houses. We found that the Council had not properly considered Ms C’s mental health condition or explained its reasons for discounting the medical evidence provided by her doctors. The Council has agreed to reconsider these points in a further review of her medical needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council has failed to consider the Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Act when it implemented a grant policy. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we cannot decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act, therefore it is reasonable to expect the complainant to raise the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a tree because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the NHS Trust and the Council moved his father from hospital into a care home that could not meet his needs. Mr X says the failings led to his father suffering an injury which hastened his death. Mr X also complained the Council missed carer’s assessments, which meant he missed payments. We will not investigate these complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault with the discharge planning or with how the Council dealt with a carer’s assessment request. Other complaints about earlier carer’s assessments were late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for the complainant to ask for a review of its decision and she has now done so. She will have further rights of appeal if the review is not successful.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide adequate support to her and Mr Y, meaning their needs were not met and causing distress. We do not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of applications for works at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax summons and a Subject Access Request. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.