LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her council tax account. Specifically, she complained the Council failed to award her a single person discount and council tax support and delayed in updating her council tax account. The Council was delayed in updating Ms X’s account. However, it has apologised and offered to set up a payment plan which is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. The Council was not at fault in how it awarded Ms X single person discount and council tax support.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to consider the impact on her guest house business when it introduced its digital parking permits. Miss X also says the system is not flexible or suitable for guesthouse businesses when requesting or amending online permits. She says this has caused her frustration, confusion, and anxiety as well as monetary loss. We find fault with the Council for failing to properly explain its concessions and failing to consult trade organisations about implementing digital parking. This caused an injustice to Miss X, however, we are satisfied the Council has no

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council has failed to maintain the road outside her home. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to apply for a court order which requires the Council to repair the road.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s reports of defects in the surface of his road. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s response to the concerns raised about the road, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy if he thinks the Council is responsible for damage to his vehicle or should conduct further repairs.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council’s scheme to tackle climate change is a waste of public money. This is because the alleged injustice affects all or most people in the Council’s area.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make a report public at least five clear days before a committee meeting. Mr X complained this prevented the committee meeting from examining the report and resulted in blue-badge holders being prevented from accessing the city centre. The Ombudsman discontinued our investigation of this complaint as further investigation of the Council would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in his neighbour Mr Y’s development which damaged his tree, resulting in its loss. There is not enough evidence of Council fault causing Mr X’s claimed injustice to warrant us investigating. Mr X’s complaint is a claim of property damage and loss, which is a legal liability issue for the courts to determine. It is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court and pursue the compensation he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s prosecution of Mr X for noise nuisance. We cannot consider matters which have been or are subject to court proceedings. We will not exercise discretion to consider matters which Mr X was aware of more than 12 months before he complained to us. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his parents’ home care package and his complaints. There was fault in how the Council failed to review Mr X’s parents’ care plans and did not follow the correct safeguarding process when investigating some concerns about Mr X’s parents. The Council has already made some service improvements, and we have made further recommendations for it to address the personal injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in taking enforcement action on breaches of planning control on a caravan site near to where he lives. We have decided to end our investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault and there is no significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed processing a change of address and then sent the complainant a threatening council tax letter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay responding to her freedom of information request. This is because it is reasonable for Dr B to complain to the Information Commissioner.

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.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the clean-up of paint and graffiti which had been targeted towards his home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made about the complainant, which she considers to be defamation and slander. This is because these are matters better decided in court. The complaint that the Council have not properly recorded information is a matter for the Information Commissioner who is best placed to investigate complaints about data protection matters. We cannot investigate any matters that have been subject to an employment tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to repair potholes. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to apply for an order from the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered concerns Mrs X raised in relation to care her mother received whilst in a residential home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the concerns to warrant further investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to explain the outcome of the investigation to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and write to her with its findings. That remedies any injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider all her circumstances when determining her rehousing band, in particular the impact on her mental health. The re-banding decision was made on behalf of the Council by one of its partners. The Council is unable to demonstrate all evidence was taken into consideration which is fault. The Council has now given Ms X gold priority banding which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to issue a parking permit, poor handling of her complaint and failure to properly consider her request for compensation. Miss X said she incurred extra costs, frustration in finding alternative parking and chasing the Council’s response. We found the Council at fault and recommended it apologise to Miss X, pay £144.80 and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to collect items after Ms X paid for a ‘bulky waste collection’ as any fault by the Council has not caused significant injustice to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. There is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council will issue its stage two response in the coming days. It has also agreed to offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take action regarding water run off. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him during a phone call that unless he paid his council tax arrears he would shortly be subject to court proceedings. We do not find fault with the Council as Mr X had not paid council tax for several months and was given sufficient notice in writing that a court summons would be issued if he did not pay the arrears before a certain date.