LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed progressing his report of a planning control breach. Based on current evidence I have found fault by the Council because it has failed to progress the case for over 12 months, this has left Mr D unsure about how his case has been handled or whether any action will be taken by the Council. The Council will now review Mr D’s case.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X complaint about a deprivation of liberty application the Council made. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the start of court action. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed making the application, because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-tipping because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing a decision on Miss B’s homeless application, left Miss B and her children in hotel accommodation for more than six weeks, delayed responding to Miss B’s representative and failed to keep proper records. An apology, payment to Miss B, reminder to officers and a review of the Council’s processes is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in considering his petition. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued after he had driven off, as he was instructed to do by the Council’s civil enforcement officer. This is because he has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a second penalty charge notice because the complaint is late and the Council has cancelled it. This provides a suitable remedy for the issue and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for him.

Summary: Mr A has complained about a council and hospital regarding his father-in-law, Mr B’s hospital discharge and homecare fees. We found fault with the hospital about a failed physiotherapy referral leading to a delay in this therapy which led to uncertainty about Mr B’s recovery. We did not find fault with the other aspects of this complaint. The hospital has agreed to carry out our recommendation in relation to physiotherapy.

Summary: The Council accepted a care agency, acting on its behalf, failed to manage failed to Mr Y’s medication safely and that there were errors in care records, however, it failed to offer a remedy for injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of an allotment site. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks and because some issues happened too long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will offer the complainant another assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging him twice to park his car. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the additional charges are not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant permission for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council overcharged for her mother, Mrs Y’s care package, delayed pursuing unpaid invoices and failed to issue amended invoices even after she complained. The Council charged Mrs Y for more care than she needed and delayed issuing revised invoices following Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused and issue revised invoices.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s vehicle crossover policy. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly considered she did not qualify for the housing register and did not consider her homelessness application. The Council is at fault as it did not properly consider Ms X’s housing register application and failed to consider a homelessness application made by her representative. As a result, the Council’s decision that Ms X did not qualify for the housing register was wrong. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X by apologising to her and making a payment of £400. It will also now place Ms X on the housing register.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint about staff working with his family. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider matters in connection with reports used in court proceedings. And there is no evidence of a significant injustice arising from fault to warrant investigation in the remaining matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the service the Council has commissioned to manage payment of its car parking facilities. There is no evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about evidence a social worker provided to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision there was a deprivation of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about provision for the complainant’s son’s special educational needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing register. The Council has accepted there was fault in its communication with the complainant and offered an appropriate remedy. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission without having regard to the Supplementary Planning Document in particular about the size of the extension and the distance between the properties. Mr X says this has caused him distress. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to establish a pedestrian crossing outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Mr K complained the Council has failed to remove a fly-tipped mattress from a river running through a council-owned park. He says this has had an impact on wildlife in the river.