LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her from its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about recovery of housing benefit overpayment. A complaint about the original decision in 2022 is late. The Council has recently offered to review the decision if Ms X provides additional information. It is reasonable for her to accept this offer.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s interactions with her in relation to the care of the children she looks after. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s failure to protect their privacy from the use of land next to their home by a business operation. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision to end its enforcement investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the review of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because the complaint is late. In addition, Miss X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan. The Council also apologised for poor communication.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to stop special guardianship support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending Mr X an automatic reply to an enquiry he made. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with safeguarding reports about Mrs B properly. It also failed – for six months – to find a new placement for the person in Mrs B’s care home who was a risk to her, despite its best efforts. These failings contributed significantly to harm Mrs B suffered over a nine-month period. The Council has taken steps to improve its service, and it has now also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B’s estate to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained, on behalf of her son Mr Y, about the support the Council provided for his special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Mr Y received some of the support in his Education Health and Care plan between May and October 2022 and how it delayed referring him for an adult social care assessment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it monitors referrals of young people for adult social care assessments.

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council disclosing the complainant’s personal information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a council tax exemption based on severe mental impairment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street lighting and 5G towers because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We found the Council to be at fault. It did not properly consider his priority need, failed to advise Mr X about a rent contribution and took too long to consider his case when it was referred to the Council by the probation service. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy his injustice. It should also take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of the complainant’s daughter’s special educational needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s vehicle crossover application. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained, on behalf of her son, Mr Z, about the support the Council provided for his special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Mr Z received all the support in his Education Health and Care plan or the full tuition hours that he should have done. This meant Mr Z went without some of that support. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Z and Miss X, and to pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to comply with its duties under the Equality Act. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to consider her complaint about how it handled her daughter Y’s care, that it did not keep her informed about Y and did not try to reunite her with her daughter. The Council was at fault for not considering Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council will apologise for the frustration this caused Ms X and consider her complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said she is still homeless, and the Council is still not helping her. She said it affected her mental health, had an impact on her child, and affected her income. We find the Council at fault. This caused Miss X unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration, and denied her a right to ask for a review of an important decision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and improve its service.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council reassessed Mr X’s priority on the Housing Register when his circumstances changed.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.