LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council’s decision not to renumber a property was a breach of the Human Rights Act. The complaint is late and we cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a request for speed restrictions and traffic calming. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its stage two investigation and providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainants by its delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in introducing traffic calming measures on a road close to Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council insisted her mother, Mrs C, returned home following a stroke and ignored her concerns. She also complained the Council delayed resolving who owned their home. She said this caused her distress and affected her relationship with her mother. During the Council’s complaint procedure, it recognised it did not take enough account of Miss B’s circumstances and apologised. The Council’s apology was a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss B. In addition, the Council will provide staff training.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the delivery of new recycling bins. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to merit an investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s charges for home care for her mother. We have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council failed to send a letter when there was an underpayment, failed to carry out regular reconciliations and its communications about the charges was unclear and not transparent. The agency which provided the care also did not provide the information it should have provided.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s school transport appeal. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for his daughter. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not assessing the safety of any of the walking routes it identified. We have also found the Council’s policies on school transport do not follow the relevant statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s application and amend the relevant policies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the way the Council conducted a reassessment of Mr C’s care needs. This is because

Mr X complained the Council: had not found him accommodation since he became homeless in July 2021, leaving him sleeping rough in a garage and his car; lowered his banding on the housing allocations register from Gold to Bronze over two months in error (around December 2021); refused him a payment from its welfare fund and ignored his request to review that decision, leaving him without funds for a blanket and toaster, and; communicated poorly with him.

Summary: Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council monitored the package of social care provided to Mr Y by a care provider. This led to Mr Y living in an unsuitable property due to its disrepair and issues with management of his finances causing distress to Mr Y’s family. Once the Council became aware of the issues it took appropriate action and moved Mr Y to more suitable accommodation. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to assess Mr X’s needs under the Care Act 2014. As a result, Mr X had to wait longer than he should have for a completed assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him for the distress he suffered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as there is a procedure provided in law for Mr X to challenge it and it is reasonable to expect him to follow this procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further enforcement action against a business near to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed in progressing his contact with his child, who is legally in care, and has recently decided to reintroduce supervised contact. Mr X can reasonably complain to the Council and return to the Ombudsman if he disagrees with the outcome.

Summary: We found no fault by a Council and ICB with regards to how they assessed Mrs Y’s needs following her discharge from hospital. However, we found fault with the Council’s complaint response which incorrectly advised Mrs Y’s son that a Continuing Healthcare Checklist had been completed when it had not. The Council will apologise for the distress this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly instructed enforcement agents to recover payment for a penalty charge notice she had already paid. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax exemptions and discount as they can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered two planning applications. Nor will we investigate the Council’s consideration of the reports of breaches of planning control. There is no evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling and decision on their complaints about breaches of planning control, resulting in their loss of amenity, loss of property value and distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault in its communications. We recommend it provides Mr and Mrs X with an apology, payment for time and trouble, further written response and consider amending its process to improve its communications in future.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s social workers have lied in court and provided false evidence. We cannot lawfully investigate actions which are part of a court case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about defects in a title deed plan or the Council’s highways plan. This is because Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the actions of the Council.