LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had acted unfairly in respect of the provision of burial plots for his parents following the death of his mother, resulting in significant extra costs on the day of the burial. This caused Mr B significant distress at a very difficult time. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not refunded a parking charge as agreed as this does not cause the complainant a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an import inspection delay. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a penalty charge for a parking contravention. This is because the complainant has already pursued a court remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what the Council has written about Miss X’s care of her child. She has a right to go to court to seek greater contact it would be reasonable to use as only a court can change the current arrangements. The Information Commissioner is also better placed than us to deal with a complaint about any factual inaccuracies in the Council’s records, as they have powers we lack to require rectification of incorrect data, and to impose penalties.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her treatment by the Council and its care provider. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate the care provided for Ms X’s relative because Ms X is not a suitable representative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take sufficient action against an ice cream van operator for breaches of their licence conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused the injustice Miss X claims.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the social worker allocated to his children’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case remains subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child for disabled children’s services, and did not properly investigate her complaint about this under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. The Council properly considered Mrs X’s complaint via the statutory procedure. However, it failed to properly follow up on one of the actions it agreed, to repay Mrs X for direct payments missed due to delays. This caused Mrs X financial loss, and avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaint further. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to make an ex-gratia payment after it made an error in calculating the complainant’s council tax support. This is because the Council has already provided a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her contact with her children. Further investigation by us would not add to the responses the Council has already provided. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing Mrs Y’s financial assessment. The Council has apologised for frustration the delay caused the family. We could not say delays caused a quantifiable financial injustice so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. There is insufficient evidence of fault in other elements of the complaint to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider the evidence he provided when deciding on his housing application. We find fault with how the Council reviewed Mr X’s application, causing uncertainty. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to arrange a new review.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness application. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review held in May 2023 and its failure to consider a request for a personal budget in this time. These faults have caused Miss B distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss B and issue a reminder to its staff to ensure they are aware of the Council duty to respond to personal budget requests.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a single occupancy discount because there is a right of appeal to Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Miss Y complains about her experiences as a care leaver, particularly around the standard of accommodation provided to her and the Council’s failure to properly consider an allegation she made against a staff member at her placement. Miss Y complained to the Council, but the investigation was not robust and did not offer an appropriate personal remedy. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to acknowledge with a payment of £3750.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about an alleged data breach.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue her with a community protection warning and the behaviour of an officer during the investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because Ms X appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to deal with her application for a disabled parking bay and that communication with her was poor. We upheld the complaint. The Council has now installed the bay, which is a partial remedy for the injustice. It will apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect Ms X’s avoidable inconvenience and frustration.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that Council delays in resolving her relative, Mr Y’s adult social care costs caused him to go into debt. The Council has waived significant outstanding costs to remedy any injustice caused by its delay and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.