LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has refused his claim for pothole damage to his vehicle and unfairly applied its unacceptable behaviour policy to him. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy, at court, if he wants to pursue a claim for damage. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault in the use of the unacceptable behaviour policy.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council enforced building regulations and planning control near his home. There was fault in how the Council failed to properly consider the legal powers available to it and took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr X a financial remedy, review is procedures and provide training to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s street trading fees are excessive and disproportionate. He considers it unfair that street traders consents are significantly more expensive than consents for ice cream traders. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council operated its street trading scheme or set the fees.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not provided support to her disabled children and about the way it dealt with her complaint. We have found fault that has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs B and her family and review its complaints handling.

Summary: Mr W and Ms P complain that building works funded by the Council through a number of disabled facilities grants have not been completed in a good and workmanlike manner. They also complain the building project has been delayed and the Council appointed contractor was not suitability qualified to carry out the works. As a result, Mr W and Ms P say their home is in a state of disrepair and they have incurred financial charges over their property as a result of agreeing to additional grants to remedy past errors. We consider there are a number of jurisdictional issues which prevent us fr

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for their son and did not adhere to the Special Education Needs (SEN) Code when reviewing their son’s Education and Healthcare (EHC) plan. They also complained there were failings in the consultation with schools and the Council failed to properly respond to their complaint. We found the Council was at fault and recommended a remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the support and hours a child received while at a nursery.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council was wrong to say it identified a pothole repair from routine inspections when Mr X had reported it to the Council. There is insufficient personal injustice or public interest to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr X has to pay an increased penalty charge notice as there is insufficient evidence that any Council fault has caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about bin collections because the injustice is not sufficient to warrant us investigating. We will not investigate councils’ complaints processes where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We found fault with the Trust; it did not allocate Mr Q a new care coordinator, did not conduct a S117 review or formally discharge him, and it was not clear with Mr P during the complaints process. We also found the Council did not understand the care package it was providing to Mr Q. This caused confusion to Mr P when he tried to clarify. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not taken action over two abandoned cars. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about matters relating to the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development at a site adjacent to his home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.