LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply a local land charge against the complainant’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Also, Mr X had a legal right of appeal to the Residential Property tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect him to use it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in purchasing a council home through the right to buy scheme. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to take court action, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about social housing tenancies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the relevant Government minister. We have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s application for a disabled person’s travel permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for causing the delays Miss X experienced during her homelessness application process. We are satisfied the Council took reasonable action to put Miss X back in the position she would have been but for the fault. The Council has also dealt with the backlog of cases that caused the delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as the complainant had the right to challenge it via an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council included his confidential address in a court report. This is because the law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate what happened in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the complainant’s daughter’s school. Such matters are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the law prevents us from investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to relocate a streetlight outside his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to trim a tree near a property she owns, and how it communicated with her and dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to justify an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ communications and complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after Ms Y reported water coming onto a highway from an adjacent property. This is because the law says

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with a change of use of land near his home. We found no fault in how the Council investigated the reported breaches of planning control arising from use of the land.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her council tax payments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her priority band on its housing register. We asked the Council to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused and it agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to prosecute a private landlord under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The case is subject to criminal court proceedings, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate these matters.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child received all the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to ensure Y received the occupational therapy provision in their plan between May 2023 and April 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge her frustration and to acknowledge the impact on Y of the missed provision. It has also agreed to issue a reminder to staff to ensure it meets its duty to deliver the provision set out in Education, Health and Care Plans.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that part-time education was sufficient for the child to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly decided his father, Mr Y, deprived himself of assets for the purpose of reducing his care fees. We found that the Council’s decision was not supported by all the available evidence, and so was fault. That fault caused Mr X and his siblings an injustice for which we have recommended a remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning permission and how it handled the concerns he later raised. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has apologised and offered to make a suitable payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his report of fly-tipping. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about charges for his late father’s care, did not properly investigate instances of overcharging and its response to his complaint was significantly delayed. We found there was fault in the information provided. We also found the investigation was not sufficient. We found the complaint response was late and insufficiently detailed. We recommended an apology, a further payment and actions to address the charging concerns Mr X raised.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant’s neighbour is maintaining their property to an adequate standard. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of anti-social behaviour. Also, the actions of the Council as landlord are outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council wrongly decided her late mother, Mrs X, deprived herself of assets to reduce her care fees. The Council made this decision in line with relevant law and guidance without fault.