LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of her father Mr X, complained the Council’s needs assessment failed to identify all his eligible needs and it delayed in completing a financial assessment which prevented her father making an informed decision and he now owes a debt of approximately £5,000. The Council accepts it delayed completing the financial assessment and has already provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to the ownership and replacement of communal waste bins at Ms X’s block of flats. This is because neither fault by the Council nor injustice caused to Ms X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council officers. An Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and that it placed her in unsuitable accommodation. The Council was at fault as it delayed offering Ms X interim accommodation and failed to properly consider the suitability of the accommodation it offered. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X and provide evidence of the actions it has taken to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Penalty Charge Notices. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms X has already taken the matter to court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about its care of him when he was a child. The Council was at fault. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and pay him £250. The Council will also complete a stage two response to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about water pooling around traffic calming installations and an associated lack of maintenance. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply for an order from the court which requires the Council to repair/maintain the highway.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not provided a sufficient remedy following delay in repairing faulty appliances in his temporary accommodation. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. There was delay in repairing the appliances and the Council has offered to make a further remedy payment to Mr X in line with its Housing Compensation Policy. The Council’s offer is fair and proportionate.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council decided Placement H was a suitable setting for her child, X, despite concerns from Ms Y and Placement H. Ms Y said this led to X losing education and therapy provision. Ms Y also complained the Council delayed agreeing to her proposed education arrangements for X and delayed securing therapy provision. We have found the Council at fault for failing to secure the therapy provision in X’s Education, Health and Care Plan for the first term of the 2023/24 academic year. We have also found the Council at fault for some of its communication with Ms Y and for dela

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: Miss X complained about noise and anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring property. She does not consider the Council did enough to stop the problems. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: there is no fault by the Council on this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that utility bills, rent and personal expenses were properly handled after the Council became the complainant’s appointee in late 2019

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to a child protection referral. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb and the Council’s policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Officers were rude to the complainant when she reported her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance. We could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council mismanaged a local allotment site by allowing a small recycling facility to occupy allotment sheds which were meant for allotment use. Mr X states this has been detrimental to himself, the site and other allotment users. The Council was at fault when it failed to take action to regularise the situation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant h

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X’s father for care and support received in 2019. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained earlier.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided discharge of conditions applications for a proposed development next to his property. There is no extant planning permission for the development because it lapsed earlier in 2022, so any claimed injustices to Mr X from how the Council dealt with the discharge of condition applications fall away. The Council not advising Mr X of its decision on the validity of the main planning permission may have caused him upset. But that is not a sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to determine his planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Mr X also had a right of appeal for the delay which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with repair issues in Miss X’s temporary accommodation. This is because the Council has already offered