LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install a crossing with a Belisha beacon outside his property. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Children’s Services involvement with his family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings.

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 this complaint about personal information being shared without permission. This is because there is insufficient evidence of council actions directly causing injustice, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider breaches of data protection law.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education provision for Z, from the point Z stopped attending School D. Ms X said this affected Z’s educational attainment and wellbeing. She said it also led to avoidable distress and expense. We have found the Council failed to consider its section 19 duty at key points. We cannot say the Council would have acted differently, but for its faults. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused. The Council has also agreed to provide guidance t

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child with a suitable fulltime education. Mr X said there has been an impact of the missed education, and it has also impacted his child’s mental health. Mr X said it caused unnecessary distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his son about delay by the Council in considering his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We found fault which caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr F and his son to remedy this.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take action to make appropriate provision for the complainant’s son. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to exercise our discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty. This is because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with him when he asked it for help with housing. Mr X said he spent time in unsuitable accommodation and believed he missed out on gaining social housing. We found the Council at fault for how long it took to assess Mr X’s homelessness and decide to owe him the main housing duty. We also found the Council at fault for the way it handled his housing register application. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and the time he spent without accommodation and ca

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s waste collection service damaged her bin. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome, and Mrs X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on the allocation of a leisure facility. Any injustice is not at a significant level sufficient to warrant an investigation. In any case, we could not achieve any meaningful outcome by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to collect council tax arrears through an attachment of earnings order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Tree Protection Order for a tree in his garden. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now, and in any case there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his contact in October 2023. An investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome or achieve what Mr X wants.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s management of a miniature railway following an incident. She also complained about the Councils complaint handling. Miss X said this distressed her and her family. We have discontinued our investigation as the Health and Safety Executive is better placed to consider the matters Miss X complained about. The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council complaint handling if we are not considering the substantive matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax support as there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability as Mr X can appeal against it to the Valuation Tribunal. That Mr X was given a council tax refund in error by the Council has not caused him sufficient injustice to justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about being charged to replace a damaged recycling bin. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a lack of heating in the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan annual review because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Her complaint that the Council failed to put in place suitable full-time education for her son is too closely linked to the annual review process and we cannot recommend the Council reimburses her legal fees from the appeal. While it is clear the Council delayed in finalising the Plan this did not cause significant enough injustice which is separate from the outcome of the review to warrant furth

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s actions put her son, Y, at risk when he was accommodated by the Council and it did not safeguard him or his sibling, Z, when it decided to return Y home. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration this caused them, and arrange a stage three panel to consider Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding her mother’s residence and care. This is because this could be or has been raised in legal proceedings.