LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to close a parking entrance to a car park without warning. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an adult social care needs assessment completed for her relative in 2022 and the charges for his care. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council stopping housing benefit. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about rent the Council claims is owed by the complainant. The courts are better placed than the Ombudsman to adjudicate in contractual disputes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in formal representations to the Council, and if needed, put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the non-determination of a planning application

Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse their claim for damages after their car was damaged when it hit a bollard. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment. We could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision terminate a commercial lease and failed to provide an alternative unit. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why the complainant could not have contacted us much sooner.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s complaint about the actions of Childrens Social Care in safeguarding her while she was under a ‘child in need’ plan in 2007. This matter was considered by the Council under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. Although Ms X remains unhappy with the outcome, we have not seen any obvious flaw in the way the investigation was carried out or how the Council considered the findings at stage two and stage three. Because there appears to be no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: X complained about developments the Council approved that are near X’s home. X said the developments will devalue X’s property. We did not investigate the complaint further as we were unlikely to find fault, evidence of significant injustice, recommend a remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about transition planning into Adult Services. The Council has investigated the complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaint Procedure and upheld most of the complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: X complained the Council had failed to take planning enforcement action and properly reply to X’s correspondence. We found fault causing an injustice to X that the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling and escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has taken the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council sent her renewed concessionary bus pass to her old address, failed to reissue the bus pass in a reasonable timeframe, and delayed responding to her complaint. Mrs X said she spent a fortune in fares. She said it caused her stress, anxiety, and anger, and cost her time and trouble. We find the Council at fault and this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a concern raised about the welfare of a child. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to enforce a refused, retrospective planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The personal injustice caused by the delays and lack of communication in the enforcement case is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman has statutory review and potential court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision that it does not owe her a housing duty. In addition, there is no sign of fault concerning its handling of other matters in her case.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s case when she presented as homeless aged 16. It failed to include children’s social care in its homelessness decision and failed to tell them about domestic abuse concerns. Its subsequent safeguarding action then featured a delayed and, at one point, inadequate consideration of the risk to Miss B. It also failed to properly deal with Miss B’s mother’s complaints. It has agreed to take a series of actions to improve its service and recognise the injustice caused.

We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor.

Mr X complained the Council delayed planning enforcement resulting in loss of privacy and distress. We find the Council at fault for its delay in addressing Mr X's complaint. The Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £1000 for his loss of privacy and avoidable distress and £150 for his time and trouble in resolving his complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to carry out all the actions agreed to remedy her earlier complaints to the Ombudsman. The Council’s continued failure to make the provision in Miss Y’s EHC plan or make the agreed payments while the provision was not in place is fault. As is the delay in issuing a final amended EHC plan and the lack of clarity about whether it would be possible to provide a nail technology tutor on a one to one basis. These faults have caused Miss X and Miss Y an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has issued an education and health care plan containing inaccurate personal information about Ms Y and without her consent. There is insufficient injustice. Mrs X can go to the Information Commissioner if she has data protection concerns. We cannot lawfully investigate the substance of the education health care plan because there is an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.