LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his child’s nursery provided funded childcare hours free of charge and said the provider instead applied mandatory top-up fees. Because of this, Mr X said that over five months, he was charged £1,173 more than he should have been for childcare hours that should have been free. The Council delayed carrying out an audit into the nursery and this was fault. However it took appropriate action by auditing the provider and instructing it to make changes. The provider still has not made the required changes but this is not due to lack of action by

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with his reports of fly-tipping, waste storage transport, and anti-social behaviour on an accessway at the back of his property. We found the Council properly considered Mr C’s concerns and there was no fault in the process it followed to reach its views. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. There was also no fault in how it communicated with Mr C and updated him on its findings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council decision making in relation to his mother, Ms Y’s, care. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council ended her temporary accommodation and that her belongings were disposed of. Ms X said she has lost most of her personal belongings. We found the Council at fault for how it ended Ms X’s temporary accommodation and for how it responded to her requests for help with her belongings. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X make a payment to her to recognise the avoidable distress and anxiety she experienced and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the Clean Air Zone. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges made by the Council. This is because it would have reasonable for the complainant to have used their right of appeal to the Valuation Office Agency.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over nuisance from its tenants. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. We cannot investigate complaints about tenancy management by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her complaint and safeguarding concern relating to her ex-partners child and girlfriend. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s vehicle by a refuse vehicle. This is because it is reasonable for him to make a claim for compensation at court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided to stop his care package after a flawed reassessment of his social care needs, and that a subsequent reassessment was delayed. The Council was at fault for delay in completing the first reassessment. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise. It will also issue a staff reminder about needs assessment timescales. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Mr X complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint that a charge he has to pay for a road charging contravention is too high. This is because Mr B could have raised this matter as part of his appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision in her child D’s Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to secure the provision in the Plan, which caused D to miss special educational needs provision. It also caused avoidable distress to Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review what happened in this case and produce an action plan to prevent similar issues in future.

Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Miss X about how the Council handled her homeless application. We have found fault with the Council for placing Miss X in interim accommodation that placed her at risk. This caused Miss X avoidable distress during an already stressful period. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X in recognition of the distress caused. We found no fault with how the Council handled Miss X’s homeless application after her stay in interim accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to disabled parking provision. Parts of the complaint are late and of the remaining parts, there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax empty homes premium. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council investigating a noise complaint and taking action to address this. This is because the Council is proactively investigating whether the noise amounts to a nuisance. Though the Council accepts there was an initial delay in responding to the complainant’s noise complaint, there is insufficient evidence he has suffered a significant injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a refund after the complainant surrendered his taxi driver licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council placed him and his two children in unsuitable B&B temporary accommodation. The Council has accepted the accommodation was unsuitable. It has now agreed to a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her planning application and its handling of the matter. It is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate thereby placing the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with temporary accommodation after the Miss X became homeless. This us because she could have reasonably asked for a review. Further investigation into the decision to suspend her from the housing register would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking any action to resolve the excessive noise made by his neighbour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.