LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for an alleged fly tipping offence. This is because the courts are in the best position to decide the matter.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing needs. We found the Council had failed to keep the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation under review. We also found avoidable delay by the Council in both the review of Miss X’s housing register priority banding and its complaint handling. These faults caused Miss X significant distress and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused by its faults.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it failing to ensure there was a Method of Construction Statement in place as required by planning consent. The Council delayed deciding the Statement submitted by three months. It failed to show it contacted the developer about some of the concerns Mr Y raised. It also failed to show what Parking Services and Highways did in response to his reports. The Council agreed to send a written apology for the failings, pay £150 to Mr Y for the injustice caused, act to ensure the delay cannot happen on other cases, and remind officers of

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a homelessness crisis. Some of the complaint is late, and Miss Y had appeal rights that it was reasonable for her to exercise.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council failing to clear an overgrown garden at one of its properties. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to the Council’s care at home parking permits. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Mrs X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to address a leak in the boiler in the temporary accommodation she lives in. We find the Council was at fault for failing to follow up with the landlord about a boiler part Miss X said had to be replaced. This caused Miss X frustration, upset and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her.

Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council used another process rather than the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services to respond to Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of a family member, Mr Y. Mrs X complained the Council wanted to move Mr Y without a proper assessment of his needs or a risk assessment. She also complained communication from the Council was poor. Mrs X said this caused her and Mr Y distress and uncertainty. There was fault in the way the Council did not assess, or risk assess, Mr Y’s case before attempting to move him to a cheaper placement. This fault frustrated and distressed Mrs X. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment and issue guidance to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complained about the child safeguarding action the Council carried out involving his child in 2023. There was no fault in how the Council made its decisions during the safeguarding investigation. There was fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X poorly and how it handled its complaint. The Council agreed to apologise, provide Mr X with information it had previously said it would, and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices and subsequent enforcement action.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed dealing with a disabled parking bay application, causing avoidable distress. The Council is at fault because it delayed processing the application. Miss X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £250.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions culminating in Miss X’s relative, Mr Y, being evicted from his council home. This is because the complaint has been made late. There are no good reasons to investigate as the eviction was subject to court action. Further, we are prohibited from considering the Council’s actions as social housing provider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for changes to parking restrictions within the Council’s controlled parking zone. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request to repay the costs of a wheelchair damaged on home to school transport. There is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint handling because the Council has provided a satisfactory response.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to arrange care and support for her mother at home to facilitate a discharge from hospital and about failing to complete a continuing healthcare checklist. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in considering her housing allocation band after she provided new evidence. The Council took too long to consider this, but there was no fault which calls into question the banding outcome. The Council already apologised to Ms X for delays, which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in obtaining vacant possession in relation to properties he leased to it. This is because he can take court action to enforce the leases and obtain vacant possession and it is reasonable for him to do so.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to decide a housing review request within a reasonable timescale. She says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and led to a deterioration of her mental health. We found fault. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Ms X and to carry out a new assessment of her housing needs.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y about delays issuing and reviewing Ms Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council did not put in place special educational provision for Ms Y. We have found the Council at fault for failing to put in place adequate provision for Ms Y and for delaying issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments for loss of education to Ms Y and distress caused to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about uplifting fees to a care provider for the service it provides on behalf of the Council to meet an adult’s social care needs. Although the Council did not tell the complainant how to appeal, that does not solely cause the claimed injustice of missing a review of the decision. The Care Provider’s actions also contributed as when it asked to challenge, the Council had set its budget for the year. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a ‘notice of enforcement’ issued by the Council’s enforcement agents. This is because the fault Mr X alleges did not cause him significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about seizure of her vehicle by Council-commissioned Enforcement Agents. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or its Agent to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays and lack of communication by the Council. The law prevents us from investigating the Council’s actions as a registered social housing provider.