LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not investigate his complaints about nuisance and antisocial behaviour properly. We discontinued our investigation. That is because there is not enough evidence of significant fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to roots from a Council owned tree which Mr X says have damaged his property. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to the courts which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council breaching an agreement to monitor a hedge to ensure compliance with a Remedial Notice and to publish correct information on its website. The Council confirms it is continuing with annual inspections, the hedge is currently below actionable height and the website is up to date. We do not consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council has recognised that there were faults in its child protection procedures when deciding whether to place the complainant’s son on a child protection plan. We have recommended a way to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a retrospective planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bulky waste collection because the problem has been resolved.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council carried out child protection proceedings and says he could not properly contribute to the process. Mr X also says the Council wrongly refused to investigate his complaint about S47 reports compiled for the proceedings. We have found fault by the Council. However, this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the fault identified.

Summary: Mr D complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr and Mrs A complain errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near their home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr C complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

Summary: Mr B complains errors by the Council resulted in a telecommunications mast being erected near his home. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault, has apologised and taken steps to ensure the error does not reoccur.

not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the responsibility for a drainage system which affected Mr X’s property in 2018. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about her daughter’s welfare. This is because the complaint concerns matters which may be raised in a court of law.

Summary: Mr X complained about unreasonable delay in the Council investigating his planning enforcement allegation. There was delay and this is fault, but there is no evidence to show that the outcome of the Council’s planning enforcement decision would have been different.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council did not implement recommendations made in response to her complaint about lack of support for her child. She also complained about delays handling her complaint. Miss X said this caused them both stress and distress, impacted on Miss X’s physical and mental health, and cost her time and trouble. The Council has reminded staff of the statutory guidance around timeframes in children’s complaints, and will make a payment to Miss X reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council decided development near Mrs X’s home did not breach planning control.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children service’s actions. We cannot investigate issues which form part of Court proceedings. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his data protection issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainant’s daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of investigation into a report of potential damage to protected trees. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s 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 Council’s handling of the removal of Mr X’s vehicles as abandoned. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We have upheld complaints from Ms D, Ms K and Ms F about the actions of the Council, Home and Integrated Care Board in connection with the care of their late mother, Mrs M.

Summary: The Council was at fault for its handling of Mr and Mrs B’s complaints, because it should have processed them under the Children Act complaints procedure and it failed to do so. However, this caused Mr and Mrs B no significant injustice. We cannot, or will not, comment on the remaining aspects of the complaints, either because we have no power to do so or because Mr and Mrs B have already received a thorough response from the Council.

Summary: The Council was at fault for its handling of Mr and Mrs B’s complaints, because it should have processed them under the Children Act complaints procedure and it failed to do so. However, this caused Mr and Mrs B no significant injustice. We cannot, or will not, comment on the remaining aspects of the complaints, either because we have no power to do so or because Mr and Mrs B have already received a thorough response from the Council.