LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs B is the registered manager of an organisation that provides adult social care. The Council received concerns about the organisation and started the adults safeguarding concerns process. Mrs B complained the Council did not follow the

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax fees because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly advising Ms X about disabled facilities grants. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about several penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council reduced the direct payments for Ms P’s care and support and took back some of the money it paid. The Council was at fault

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council caused her time and trouble in how it dealt with a fixed penalty notice issued for littering. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice. The Council accepted Ms X’s representation and cancelled the notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as it has been cancelled and we cannot add to this.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report written by a social worker. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide support for the complainant’s daughter, and about the process of deciding to decline to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from a decision which is itself outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about bias by the Council in dealing with Mr X. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either have been or could reasonably have been raised in a court of law.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to complete a care assessment appropriately and ignored her parent’s needs. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely faults.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to prosecute her neighbour, who had carried out works to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order. We did not investigate this complaint further, because we are unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or reach any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether the complainant’s business was eligible for the business rates expanded retail discount. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to address complaints of discrimination. This is because the Council’s decision is not separable from a matter which we cannot consider by law.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not make a direct offer of a new home or adapt the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained there was fault in the way the Council calculated her council tax and communicated with her. I found there was no fault in the actions taken to recover arrears. There was fault in the way the Council initially responded to Mrs X’s complaint, but the Council apologised and rectified this in later correspondence. I found no fault that warranted a remedy for Mrs X.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council has not made the agreed rental payments for two homeless people which she agreed to accommodate as lodgers. We do not find fault in the substantive complaint however there is an outstanding payment for one tenant which the Council will now make.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it would be reasonable for Miss X to refer the issues to other bodies which are better placed to consider her concerns.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council used historical and inaccurate information when it placed her children under child protection measures. We found there was no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s enforcement of historic council tax debts, which he was not liable for. He also complains about the Council’s decisions about council tax liability. We uphold the complaint, because the Council did enforce against the wrong person and did not act on communications from Mr Y about this. We have not investigated the council tax liability. That is because Mr Y can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about these issues.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled his noise complaint. I have concluded my investigation having found fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s noise complaint. There were unreasonable delays throughout the process, and this caused an injustice to Mr X. The Council have agreed to the recommendations proposed.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a parking permit matter. This is because Ms X’s injustice lies in a penalty charge notice issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for her to appeal against it.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application and its failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation. The errors in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homeless application amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly calculated her entitlement to housing benefit and wrongly refused to award Discretionary Housing Payment which has resulted in significant rent arears. The delays and errors in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s housing benefit and Discretionary Housing Payment claims amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.