LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for a school place. This is because the school concerned is an academy and we cannot investigate complaints about actions taken on behalf of academies. The Council’s actions in relation to the appeal stem from a private arrangement with the school rather than an administrative function; they therefore fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the disabled adaptations to her council home. This is because we cannot investigate a council’s actions when it is acting as in its management of social housing role.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed investigating alleged electoral fraud by councillors. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about events in 2021, to have used the court remedy available to him, and the Police are also better placed to consider his allegation of electoral fraud.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her father. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax bill as it has been remedied.

Summary: We consider City of Wolverhampton Council and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust jointly contributed to delays finalising Y’s Education, Health and Care plan. That caused Mrs X and her son a personal injustice which the organisations will remedy.

Summary: We consider City of Wolverhampton Council and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust jointly contributed to delays finalising Y’s Education, Health and Care plan. That caused Mrs X and her son a personal injustice which the organisations will remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided for her son’s special educational needs. The Council was at fault for delays in issuing an amended EHC plan and completing an agreed social care reassessment. This caused avoidable frustration and worry for Mrs X for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to review how it monitors and arranges social care assessments for disabled children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay progressing Mr X's purchase of his Council home. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in passing his tenants’ housing benefit appeals to the independent Tribunal. The Council was at fault for delay in sending the appeals to the Tribunal. This meant the tenants experienced a period of uncertainty. The Council has now made new decisions for which the tenants have a right of appeal. The Council has agreed to remind its staff they must forward appeals to the Tribunal promptly.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint. The substantive matters behind the complaint are not separable from matters that have been or could have been raised in court. Miss X also has a right to go to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she wishes to complain of a data breach by the Council, and it would be reasonable to use this right.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to comply with the Court’s orders. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that are being or have been considered in court. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s signage and its issue of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X’s injustice lies in the amount of the penalty charge, which is not significant enough to warrant our further involvement, and because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with his application for a private hire vehicle driver’s licence. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to pay the complainant a foster carer retainer. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no reason why it could not have been made sooner.

Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a nearby development. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant personal injustice to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bin service. There is not a significant enough personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter to warrant investigation. We could not add to the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s claims of harassment and victimisation, or get a different outcome. The harassment allegation is a police matter, and Mr X’s allegation of property damage by bin staff is a legal liability matter for an insurer or courts to determine.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her mother Mrs C during a two week stay at a care home commissioned by the Council. We have not found fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s adoption application. There is insufficient evidence of injustice we could consider, and an investigation is unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about delays in the Council providing adoption support for their two children and in dealing with his complaint about it. We found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to increase its payment to Mr B to £1000 and to take steps to improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that social workers have made false accusations against Mr X. The matters complained of are not separable from issues concerning contact with Mr X’s children, in respect of which Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: The complainants said the Council failed to address properly their objections to the planning application filed by their neighbours. They considered the Council’s approval of the planning application would result in the property’s overdevelopment and loss of amenity for the complainants’ property. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and how it dealt with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a speed cushion. This is because the court or Mr Y’s insurer is better placed to consider this complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his business a COVID-19 business grant, causing financial difficulties. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in how the Council determined Mr X’s application.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s interpretation of a judge’s wishes. The matters complained of are not separable from the conduct of court proceedings.