LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council treated Mrs X’s son when it pursued a council tax debt and that the Council inappropriately passed on Mrs X’s address to enforcement agents. This is because of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint and insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council charged him the wrong fee for a licence to rent out a house in multiple occupation and then delayed in processing his licence application. We find the Council was at fault for the delay. But we do not consider this caused Mr C an injustice and have therefore completed our investigation without asking it to provide a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with disability related expenditure in the financial assessment process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complained about how the Council managed their council tax accounts. There was fault in how the Council provided information to Mr X and Mrs Y about their arrears, and how it responded to their complaint. This caused them avoidable frustration and confusion, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay them a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to provide clear information to Mr X and Mrs Y about their arrears.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing a charge on the complainant’s property and refusing to discuss the matter with him. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to complete work at Mr X’s property. This is because the Council had no involvement in the work, which had been arranged by Age UK, and so it falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council are responsible for delays completing an application under the right to buy scheme. This is because it would be reasonable to expect the complainants to use the legal remedy available to him under the right to buy procedure.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to provide support to him as a care leaver and failed to consider his complaint properly. We found Mr B was not a care leaver in terms of the law and so the Council does not have a duty towards him. But we did find fault with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £100 and improve its procedures.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council is supressing the complainant’s code of conduct complaints against other councillors. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no powers to investigate complaints from councillors about matters relating to their role as a councillor.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how an officer working for the Coroner’s Office spoke to the complainant. This is because we cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Coroner’s Office. We cannot investigate other matters because they relate to the decision made by the Coroner which falls outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan processing. It is not possible to assess any injustice to Mr X until the process has finished.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application and its decision to grant permission. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s processing and decisions on her husband’s planning applications for a house extension, and about the Council’s complaint process. Mr X’s appeal to the Planning Inspectorate means we do not have jurisdiction to investigate any part of the complaint from before the end of that appeal. Any part of the complaint about Mr X’s final planning application is late, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaint processes where we are not pursuing the co

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to increase the charges for memorials. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils decision. Further, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about conclusions made by the coroner into the cause of death of Miss X’s partner. Coroners are not employees of the Council and therefore its actions are not administrative functions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delays in progressing her Right to Buy application. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her under the Right to Buy procedure in the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about jewellery that went missing when Mrs X was a resident in a care home. That is because there are other bodies better placed to deal with the matter and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not yet rehoused her when she has an urgent need to move for medical and welfare reasons. We found the delay is not due to fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively fund PA support for his daughter, Miss X, during a family holiday abroad. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council about how it dealt with his application to join its housing register. Had he provided correct information on his application, the Council would have refused it, instead of allowing him on the register and none of the events about which he now complains, would have happened.

Summary: There was fault as the Home failed to monitor the call bell response times and failed to provide appropriate records relating to two falls Mrs C suffered. The Home gave contradictory explanations on how one of the falls occurred. The records also say that Mrs C’s call bell and mat were unplugged on one occasion. The Council which commissioned the Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs C’s son and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the coroner’s service failed to inform the complainants of the date of his daughter’s inquest. This is because the complaint is made late and because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to allow the complainant to complete her right to buy purchase. It is reasonable to expect her to take the matter to court.