LGO Individual Decisions

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the complaints he raised about the Council’s actions in relation to safeguarding and housing concerns. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable as the substantive matters that led to the complaint have been resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to proceed with plans proposed by the complainant to improve the Council’s recycling service. We consider an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s request for social care services for her son. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s request to address the matter through the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s social care. This removes the need for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaints about the Council’s care planning and associated matters as the complainant has started court proceedings about the complaints.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council handled his housing situation. The Council has not shown that it took into account the mould and disrepair when it decided the family should stay until the landlord’s notice expired. The Council did not always communicate with Mr B or deal with his complaints properly, and it did not always give its legal homelessness decisions in writing. This caused Mr B distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise to Mr B, make symbolic payments, and remind staff that decisions should always be given in writing.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about recycling collections. This is because the service has improved.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delaying an offer to buy back a council property which it sold in the past. 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.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint about antisocial behaviour from a neighbour. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve what Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to reassess the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan within the statutory timescale. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the complaint is not separable from the matters which can be considered by the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided to refuse Miss X’s appeal to admit her child, W, to her preferred school. This caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise, pay her £100 and hold a new appeal hearing. It should also remind school admission appeal clerks they must keep suitable records of appeal panel’s decision-making.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan once they moved into its area. The Council is at fault for not securing Y’s provision, causing a loss of education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the loss of education and put provision in place and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess his care needs and the support he received in a supported accommodation placement. He said he experienced distress, and his mental health was impacted as a result. We found no fault by the Council. It properly reached decisions around the placement and support Mr X should receive based on the information available to it at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate neighbours Mr X and Mr Y’s complaint about the condition of the Council’s highway in front of their driveways. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process to warrant us investigating. We cannot achieve a key outcome Mr X and Mr Y want. It would be reasonable for them to pursue with the Council’s insurers, and the courts if required, any claim of legal liability for property damage. It would also be reasonable for Mr X and Mr Y to put to a court any case about whether the Council’s highway meets legally acceptable standards.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner's Office. The complainant’s allegation of misconduct in a public office is a matter for the police.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not considering all relevant information when it completed its review of his housing register priority band. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed bin collections. We could not add to the Council’s response, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and education provided as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal. There is not sufficient injustice in a short delay to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to ensure disrepair in her temporary accommodation was rectified, find her suitable alternative accommodation or give her the correct priority on the housing register. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss B to live in unsuitable conditions for a year longer than she should have done. We have asked the Council to apologise to Miss B, pay her £1300, inspect her property now and improve its case recording for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. We found the Council at fault in that it delayed in making a main housing duty decision and a decision about the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation. These faults caused Mr X distress and the injustice of being unsuitably housed for a year longer than he should have been. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making Mr X a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a remedy offered for missed education provision. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about damage caused by a Council owned tree and a personal injury claim for her child, Y. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to court.