LGO Individual Decisions

the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to stop anti-social behaviour from a nearby hotel. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. There is no evidence of significant fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed to repair pothole damage on a main road which is causing vibration and damage at his property and failed to deal competently with his complaints. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedies at court if he wants the council to repair the highway or if he wants to claim damage to his property. There is insufficient injustice to investigate the complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not processed the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to recover an overpayment to Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has sought to recover the overpayment to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide information to Mr X. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council further invoicing Mr B for his late father’s, Mr D’s, care after sending a final invoice. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to accept responsibility for the flooding which affected his property caused by full and overflowing drains. We will not investigate the complaint because Mr X has a legal remedy through the courts which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax account. It is unlikely we could conclude there was fault by the Council on some points. Matters related to the court action are outside our power. The Council has done enough to put matters right and we cannot achieve much of what Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a parish councillor had not breached the Member’s Code of Conduct.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as this is a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him no notice that his care provider was changing. The Council was not at fault. It told Mr X as soon as it had arranged a new care provider, which was the day after the care provider gave notice.

Summary: We did not uphold complaints about inaccurate records or a lack of carer support because the Council carried out assessments of Mr Y’s needs and a carer’s assessment for Ms X in line with the Care Act 2014. We were satisfied the records were accurate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to maintain an unadopted highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s new wheeled recycling bins. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision that Mr X’s property is suitable for the new bins to justify investigating. Any fault in the Council’s initial response to Mr X’s concerns did not cause sufficient injustice to him to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s personal expenses allowance. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s actions when it received a safeguarding alert. There is not a good reason Ms X did not complain sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly charging Ms X for care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to his reports of breaches of planning control. Mr B says he suffered from construction disturbance, damage to nearby footpaths and a lack of landscaping. We have found fault by the Council but consider the action it has already taken of providing an outcome to Mr B and an apology for delay provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against her neighbour’s front garden fence. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Even if the complaint had been in time, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement process to justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mr B. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has the wrong highway repair priorities, has failed to repair two major roads which places drivers at risk, and wastes public money. Mr X has a legal remedy at court which it is reasonable for him to use if he has evidence the Council has failed in its duties to keep the roads in a state of repair. We cannot lawfully investigate a complaint a council wastes money or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the charges for her son’s care after he left a care home to live with his family because of COVID-19. Although the Council agreed to waive 50% of the charge, Mrs X says this left her son without enough money to contribute towards the family’s increased household costs. The Council failed to review Mr Y’s needs or consider ending his placement when he went to stay with his family. This prevented him from accessing all his money and caused avoidable distress to his family. The Council needs to apologise, waive all Mr Y’s charges since 1 June 2020 and pay financial

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation of Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed issuing her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failed to consult an occupational therapist during the assessment for the plan. This is because it is not possible to assess the extent of the injustice until the provision she should have been receiving is known. A Tribunal is currently considering this.