LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s case. The complaint is about matters that were decided by a court, and we have no power to investigate or change the court’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to remove a flag displayed at a community centre which he says is discriminatory, and which he said caused him distress. We find the Council at fault for not considering relevant guidance as part of its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a fresh decision.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not include his child as part of his homelessness application so did not provide suitable interim and temporary accommodation. Mr X also complains that the accommodation offered to end the main housing duty was unsuitable. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its decision that Mr X’s child was not ordinarily resident with him. The Council is at fault as it suggested contacting Mr X’s former partner who allegedly perpetrated domestic abuse against Mr X. But this fault did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer allegedly sharing information about Mr X with a third party. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the issues raised are about matters that have been considered during court proceedings and because there are other bodies better placed to consider other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council giving incorrect information. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with the complaint and we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal properly with safeguarding concerns about her adult son. The Council was not at fault over its handling of the safeguarding concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of a Memorial Permit fee at its cemeteries. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: the Council was at fault when it failed to update its system promptly to stop Mr X being nominated for properties in areas of the city where he was at risk. This caused him significant distress because he feared he would be offered a property in an area where there was a risk of contact with the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not sending Mrs A the recording of a meeting because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data disclosure matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on a high hedge complaint. The neighbour has appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s remedial notice. The Council cannot take further action as the decision on the hedge lays with the Planning Inspector. Therefore, we do not consider an investigation will lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We uphold a complaint about the Council’s failure to act when Ms X asked for assistance with childcare and other support when she was receiving cancer treatment. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action set out in this statement to minimise the chance of recurrence.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaints about her son’s social worker and the Council’s failure to support her son. The Council was not at fault in how it investigated the actions of the social worker. However, it was at fault for failing to investigate Ms X’s additional complaint she made in August 2023. At the end of this decision statement, we made recommendations about what the Council should do to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and her son.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s use of a property to meet its housing duties. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the inadequacy of a section 7 court report because we cannot investigate complaints about reports prepared for court action or the way court action is handled. We will not investigate her complaints about the Council’s handling of the child in need process because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy and there is nothing we could add to its investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not put in place suitable education for her child when she was out of school and delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan after an annual review. Ms X said her child has missed out on education she should have received and has had to wait longer than she should have for an updated Education, Health and Care plan. We have found the Council at fault for not putting in place appropriate education for Ms X’s child and for delaying in providing a final Education, Health and Care plan. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to recog

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to subject access requests and freedom of information requests. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council’s consideration of enforcement against some of Mr X’s neighbours’ driveways and vehicle crossovers, and how it handled the complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling when we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s children’s case. The matter has been considered in court, and the law says we cannot investigate it too.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child who was medically unfit to attend school. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in finalising her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to provide provision from the previous EHC Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Ms X’s child for slightly over one and a half terms. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide provision from the EHC Plan for the same time. We also found the Council at fault for delays in finalising the EHC Plan. The Council agreed t