LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay issuing a council tax bill. It is unlikely an investigation would reach a worthwhile outcome or achieve what Ms X wants. It is reasonable for her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if dissatisfied with the Council’s decision related to council tax support.

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

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to respond properly about unacceptable noise from a nearby business. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed in providing her a replacement refuse bin and failed to respond to her complaint. We find fault with the Council for delay and have recommended a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his medical conditions when reviewing his housing application. We find fault with the Council for failing to communicate effectively with him. We have agreed a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his wife by a care provider arranged by the Council. Mr X also complained the Council did not appropriately consider his concerns. He says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and worry and resulted in him having to complete his wife’s care. We found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of social workers involved with assessing who is best placed to care for and have contact with the children of his family. The matters he complains of are closely linked to or directly form part of court action. A permanent legal bar thus prevents us from investigating them.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council responded after he reported disrepair in his home which he rents from a private landlord. He also complained about poor complaints handling. The Council was not at fault with how it responded to the report of disrepair in Mr X’s home. The Council was at fault with its delayed response to Mr X’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. The Council has already apologised for the stage 1 delay which remedied the injustice caused. The stage 2 delay did not cause Mr X a significant injustice and no recommendation was needed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to approach the courts about the issue, who are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school admission appeal panel in refusing an infant class place for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of court ordered reports written by the Council. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court.

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application. It offered suitable interim accommodation that Mr X refused. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when his child was removed from a school’s roll. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Additionally, some of Mr X’s complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because the complaint concerns information the social worker has submitted to court. The matters are therefore not separable from the matters that have formed part of court proceedings. Social Work England are better placed to consider complaints about the conduct of social workers and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close its homelessness investigation because the complainant is no longer threatened with homelessness. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. Many of the issues raised happened too long ago or were considered in court proceedings. We could not add to the Council’s investigation into parts of the complaint that the Council upheld and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection failings by the Council as doing so would be unlikely to lead to different or better outcome for Mr X, or to any worthwhile outcome in terms of Council practice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the costs of a vehicle cross over, which the Council installed. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s concerns about the quality of resurfacing work on the footpath outside his home. This is because there is no injustice to Mr X and in any case we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of the Council and one of its social workers because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not put alternative provision in place for her child, Y, when Y became too unwell to attend school. The Council was at fault in how it decided whether to arrange alternative provision for Y and for delay in issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and upset for which the Council will apologise and pay her £500. The Council will also identify what actions it needs to take to ensure it retains information about its actions and decision-making in relation to a child’s education when a member of staff leaves thei

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly shared personal information about the complainant’s child. The Council has already apologised. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate their complaint the Council has failed to provide their child a fulltime education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council’s school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.