LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices for a bus lane contravention. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning committee meeting which granted permission for a development on land near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants from his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions to address his complaint about the conduct of a councillor, including delays. This is because the Council has now investigated and replied to Mr X, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken. It has also apologised for the delays and that is appropriate.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his vehicle crossover extension application. We found the Council at fault for significant delays quoting for the work, and in responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable distress which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to transfer a property to housing services to be used as temporary accommodation. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a road defect which the Council failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not requiring a nearby business to move its commercial waste bin and not dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB) related to the bin. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding the bin to warrant investigation. The ASB matters do not cause such significant injustice to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a development in the area where he lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to approach the court about the issue, who are better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s accommodation not meeting her needs for support. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions as a registered social housing provider, and the complaint is instead within the scope of the Housing Ombudsman. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered a safeguarding referral from Ms X’s advocate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision and this is currently in progress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and possible breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. We are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider her concerns about a build-up of waste outside her neighbour’s property. She says this has caused avoidable stress and anxiety to the family and means she cannot use parts of her house or garden. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and financial remedy, and to review the case to identify what further action may be taken.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct during an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the actions of a council during a tribunal appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her car was damaged when it hit a concrete block. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs G’s complaint about its decision to cancel her Right to Buy application. It failed to make her a written offer within 8 weeks, failed to tell her of her right to seek a remedy through the courts when it cancelled her application, and failed to make and retain evidence of the request for advice, along with the advice received, from a third party. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a blocked drain outside her property. This is because it would be reasonable for her to use the process set out at Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an annual review of a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because the complainant has used, or could have used, their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council repeatedly failed to collect her household waste and recycling despite being registered for an assisted collection which caused her avoidable frustration and distress. We found the Council at fault but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and period of monitoring provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education for her child since leaving school and the apprenticeship broke down. We found fault with the Council for delaying reviewing Ms X’s child’s Education Health and Care Plan for nearly two years outside the timescales. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide both provision in the Education Health and Care Plan and suitable education or training to a child aged between 16 and 18 years old for fifteen months. We also found fault with the Council for poor handling of Ms X’s contacts and complaints. The Council agreed