LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of support with his housing situation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to maintain a tree in its area. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. It is also reasonable to expect Mr X to submit his concerns about property damage to the Council’s insurers and ultimately the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support the Council gave Mr Y with his homelessness. The complaint about the period before July 2023 is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the period July 2023 to May 2024 to justify our involvement. Mr Y had rights of review and appeal if he disagreed with the Council’s decision in May 2024 that he was intentionally homeless and it was reasonable for him to exercise those rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Special Guardianship Order allowance paid to the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s waste collection staff leaving other people’s bins where they block access to his property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the matter complained about.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son with a full-time education and support for his special educational needs. We found the Council was at fault. It failed to carry out an annual review and update the Education, Health and Care Plan to reflect his change in circumstances. It also took too long to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and take action to improve its service. We did not investigate some of Mrs X’s complaint because it was late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in formal representations, and if needed, appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of a 20mph speed limit zone as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. Additionally, there is insufficient personal injustice caused to the complainant to justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against a neighbour who the complainant says is causing noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaints to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions before May 2022. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council’s contractor does not return his bins to the collection point and instead leaves them at his gate, despite being registered to receive assisted refuse collections. There was fault by the Council in the way it repeatedly failed to return Mr B’s bins to the agreed assisted collection point. Because of this, Mr B suffered frustration and uncertainty and could not access his bins. The Council will apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, monitor his collections and issue a staff briefing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of complaints Mr X has made to it. This is because we have previously addressed earlier complaints about these matters and there is nothing new which warrants investigation.

Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about a councillor and then failed to tell him about the Ombudsman. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision on Mr X’s councillor complaint. But the Council delayed signposting Mr X to us although that delay did not cause him significant injustice. However, to prevent such delay possibly causing injustice to others in the future, the Council agreed to take steps to ensure people were made aware they could complain to us.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking responsibility for the maintenance of an access road leading to the school for which she works. Mrs X has brought the complaint on behalf of the school, which is a public body created for purposes of public service. We cannot investigate because the law prevents us from investigating complaints made by public bodies.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the information she requested in a subject access request. This is because the complaint is about a data issue which is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in preventing the complainant from having contact with his grandchildren. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which could have been taken to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to complaints Mr X has made. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council delayed paying an agreed symbolic financial remedy. This is because the Council has now paid the remedy and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against a council tenant who Mr X says is causing noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of tenancies by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission and planning enforcement because the injustice cannot be assessed at this stage.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in connection with the care of the complainant’s children.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council is refusing to remove two trees close to her home. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue this matter at court.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to deliver the social care provision in Mr X’s son’s (Y’s) Education Health and Care Plan. This caused Y and his family an avoidance injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.