LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment which arose in 2014. This is because it is a late complaint, the complainant could have used her appeal rights, and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed considering a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of lessons in her child’s school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to transport his son to college for eleven days as outlined in his son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mr X says he needed to transport his son to college during this time but the Council only paid £0.30 per mile and not £0.55 per mile. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Mr X’s travel expenses at £0.55 per mile.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding Miss X and the safety of her child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either have been, or could reasonably have been, raised during court proceedings.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to rehouse her after placing her in an unsuitable property and about her priority banding. She also complained about harassment from her neighbour. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not offer to carry out a review of her priority banding. To remedy the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to her and review its practices. We did not find fault with the Council’s original offer of accommodation or how is dealt with her complaints about harassment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to notify him about the expiry of his blue badge. This is because the injustice he claims lies in the issue of a penalty charge notice against which it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Mr X paid the penalty charge at the discounted rate of £35 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant our further involvement in the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to reimburse post 16 transport costs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has now agreed to the complainant’s request. This remedies the complaint and there is nothing else we could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate a complaint regarding disrepair for a house purchased from a private company. The Council is not responsible for carrying out repairs for a private property.

Summary: Mr E complained about the Council’s delays when he reported his neighbours were using his dropped kerb. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed responding to Mr E’s communication and it also delayed responding to his complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mr E’s injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr X and his family, regardless of whether these amount to the Council presenting untruths to a court or concealing information from it. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning contact with children that are before a court and can only be decided by a court.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change the location of a bus shelter near Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbour failing to meet planning conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint at stage three and make a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is failing to keep highway signs clear and readable and not obscured by tree branches. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and the Council has agreed to review the situation at one location of concern.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of noise and toxic fumes coming from a neighbouring property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide information needed for a court order.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about eviction by the Council and recovery of an overpayment of housing benefit. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the eviction is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman and the overpayment can be appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to hard surface sections of a path in her area. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to warrant an investigation. The matters raised do not cause a significant personal injustice to Ms X which justifies our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about service charges for a leasehold flat. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about properties held on a long lease from social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre; there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and where we are not investigating the substantive issue, we will not investigate complaint handling.