LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide Alternative Provision of education for her child, who was out of education from October 2023 to June 2024. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Alternative Provision of education for Ms X’s child from February 2024 to June 2024, totalling one term. We also found fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s contacts and complaints through delays outside the complaint timescales and failure to respond to contacts. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £100 for the avoidable inconvenience and frustration caused and £1,

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to consider Mr X’s complaint until after court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of noise from early morning deliveries to a nearby grocery shop. The Council has taken proportionate steps to investigate and reduce the noise. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice. As the matter has been considered by a tribunal, it is no longer within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about council tax liability. If Ms X disputes her liability for the debt, there is a right of appeal to a tribunal which it is reasonable for her to use. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her information request, she can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council seizing his car on two occasions. The complaint is late and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s garden waste collection service, or the decision to introduce a service charge for garden waste collection. There is insufficient evidence of fault for part of the complaint, and an investigation into the the remaining matters is unlikely to achieve any further outcome.

Summary: The complainant, X, complained that a Cyber Attack on the Council’s systems meant they were unable to pay Council Tax at the time. X was billed for Council Tax during the financial year and so the Council’s offer of a payment plan is reasonable. There was fault, as the Council failed to tell X of the right to appeal to the Valuation Fund after an application to the Council Tax Reduction Discretionary Fund was refused. Apologising and writing to X to give the right of appeal remedies the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice issued to her for littering. This is because the Council has commenced court proceedings about the matter.

Mrs D complained the Council refused to renew her Blue Badge. Our investigation has found fault in the advice given to staff who work at the Council’s assessment centre and assess Blue Badge applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided a licensing application for the sale of alcohol. This is because the complainant objected to the application having made relevant representations during this process, and therefore has a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court. We consider the complainant could reasonably exercise that appeal right if he disagrees with the Council’s decision. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his council tax repayment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling and decision to end a fostering placement. The complaint is late and we are unlikely to add anything to the investigation the Council carried out or achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has not rehoused her despite her being on its housing register since 2015. The Council has considered her priority band appeal and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on that part now. Miss X can ask the Information Commissioner whether the Council breached data rules. The Council has offered enough remedy for not telling Miss X she could bid for social housing.

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 application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability as there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support and assistance to deal with her homelessness. The Council was at fault when it failed to properly consider information Miss X provided about her relationship with her family, for not notifying Miss X it had decided she was not in priority need and for not ensuring she received its decision letters. There was no fault in the way it reached its decision Miss X’s altercation with a relative was not domestic abuse. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge her frustration and loss of

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate now. On more recent events, there is not enough evidence of fault. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to decide if the Council has wrongly withheld information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential financial mismanagement by an adult social care provider the Council arranged. The financial issues are being considered by the Department for Work and Pensions who are better placed to investigate. The Council has acknowledged the impact on the complainant from it delays and failures to update by apologising. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to that or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it handled Miss X’s request to join the housing register. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and denied her of her review rights. The Council has agreed to repeat the application process, apologise and pay Miss X £200 in recognition of the distress caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he was not entitled to priority on its housing register on medical grounds and delay. We found the Council to be at fault. There was significant delay processing his application, in part due to a cyber-attack. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, we recommend the Council should apologise and make a payment to acknowledge his frustration.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Mr X has been caused injustice as a result of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the complainant’s car from a council vehicle. The Council has accepted liability and an investigation would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to reply to his complaint, and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to comply with its requests.