LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure to tell the complainant of her relative’s death. We understand the distress this caused, but we are satisfied the care provider, on behalf of the council, has given a thorough response, apologised, and will seek to improve future service. We would not achieve anything further. While this does not answer all the complainant’s questions, it would not be proportionate for us to investigate to seek such information.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove a tree near his property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint made by a parish council about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because we cannot investigate complaints made by public bodies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide alternative school transport arrangements for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her compensation claim for damage to her boundary wall. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to the complainants concerns after he was asked to leave private property. The Council is not responsible for the matter he complains about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs B’s Best Interest Assessment (BIA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment in 2021. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s children’s case. The complaint relates mainly to the Council’s Section 7 report submitted to court, which the law prevents us from investigating. Other matters Mr X raises are late, and in any event there is insufficient evidence of fault. We do not have the power to change the court’s decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council funded her father, Mr Y’s, mental health aftercare. There was some fault in how the Council made its decision not to backdate Mr Y’s personal budget in 2022, but this did not affect the outcome. However, the Council also failed to take into account that it was previously paying higher costs which meant that Mr Y’s wife, Mrs Y, paid too much towards his care home fees. The Council agreed to apologise and refund the difference to Mrs Y.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a social worker lying to the family court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainant’s child. This is because the complainant has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a license relating to launching a kayak because the complaint is late with no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a housing improvement notice and pursuing the freeholder of a House in Multiple Occupation(HMO) for failing to obtain a licence under the Housing Act 2004. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal about the Notice. There is no fault in the Council requiring a licence for the premises because this is a legal requirement in a designated HMO licensing area.

Summary: We found fault by a Council and ICB as they failed to provide Mrs R with care and support to meet her assessed needs. The Council and ICB will apologise to Mrs R’s son, Mr P, and pay him a financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused him. We found no fault by the Trust with regards to the care provided to Mrs R by the District Nursing service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Freedom of Information request. Mr X has already approached the courts and the Information Commissioner’s Office about the issue.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to consult him on changes to a planning application and failed to consider how the development would impact on his amenity. The report for the planning application does not refer to the impact on Mr B’s amenity, which is fault. It is unlikely that affected the outcome of the planning application. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council separating Miss X’s siblings from her mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from the decisions of courts, which we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing Mr X with incorrect information about the depth remaining in a family burial plot. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs D’s complaint about the care and support provided to their son, Mr C by the Council, or their concerns that the Council has not taken account of their views. This is because the case is currently with the Court of Protection to decide where it would be in Mr C’s best interests to live.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed bin collections and an associated lack of communication by the Council. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The service has improved and, on balance, there is not enough residual injustice to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed dealing with a complaint about how it safeguarded a child who was in foster care. This is because the Council has now issued its complaint response and has made an appropriate payment to remedy the delay. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault in how the Council considered the application is likely to have affected the planning decision, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainants are seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a children services referral. There is not enough evidence of significant fault or injustice to justify an investigation.