LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss Y complained her complaint the Council failed to support and protect her daughter was not properly considered by the Council under the statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council regarding the remedy proposed in response to her complaint, and the delay in completing the Stage 3 review, causing injustice. We do not consider the recommendation meets our expectations based on our published remedies guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain roads it is responsible for. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault when it did not consider Mrs X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedures. The Council also delayed or failed to provide a substantive response to many of Mrs X’s complaints. It has agreed to apologise, pay her £250 and make service improvements to help reduce the risk of a reoccurrence of the faults identified.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about action concerning Mrs X’s child. These matters are either the actions of a school, or not separable from those that concern the actions of a school.

Summary: Miss X complains about the actions of the care provider while her grandmother was at a care home. She complains the care provider failed to provide appropriate care, failed to properly assess, failed to communicate effectively with the family, failed to follow COVID-19 protocols, and failed to give four weeks notice to end the placement. We find fault with poor record keeping. We have made some recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused. We also find some fault with the actions of the care home. However, these faults did not cause significant injustice, or have alr

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse the application to the Planning Inspectorate so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in that it did not give the late Mrs Y details of the exact care charges before care visits started. The Council told Mrs Y in writing that she would need to pay the full cost of the care so this fault does not mean the Council should waive the cost of care, as her family would like. An apology and the offer of a repayment plan remedies the injustice from the failure in communication.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Miss X’s child. This matter is not separable from the decisions of courts.

will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s street cleaning and it not responding to his initial reports about litter. The Council’s actions, and apology to Mr X, resolve these parts of the complaint and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Mr X’s complaint about Council staff is a personnel matter we cannot investigate, and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its responses to Mr X’s allegation about a local business’ disposal of its waste. That and other complaint issues do not cause Mr X a significant personal

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him a COVID-19 business grant. While one reason for its refusal appears flawed we cannot question the Council’s decision that Mr X did not meet the criteria for the grant. Any fault did not therefore cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not replacing some trees. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to disregard Mrs B’s property in her financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s assessment of her support needs. We have found fault by the Council in its delay completing one of the assessments. The Council should remedy this by making a payment to reflect the distress this caused Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed for many years to properly maintain and repair a wall near his relative’s grave. There is no evidence of fault or injustice in the last 12 months. We will not investigate the earlier period because Mr X used his legal remedy against the Council and complains late.

The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained a councillor had breached the Elected Member Code of Conduct. Ms X said the Councillor had failed to support her daughter (Ms Y) who was experiencing anti-social behaviour. Ms X said the Councillor passed her concerns about her daughter’s housing onto another councillor after she contacted them about an unrelated matter.

Mr X complains about delay by the Council in removing comments in a planning case. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before deciding to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaints about issues which are not separable from Court proceedings. We will not investigate their other complaints as Social Work England is better placed, and there is nothing significant extra we could add to other elements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the granting of planning permission and retrospective approval to remove a protected tree. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report written by the Council’s children’s services. This is because the report has been considered during court proceedings, which places the contents outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s investigation of noise complaints. It considered the evidence and then reached a decision not to issue a Community Protection notice after obtaining two lots of legal advice. This complaint is not upheld. The Council’s decision not to investigate another complaint about low frequency noise as it could not hear it, was also without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded when a young person left the complainant’s care. This is because the matter has been considered in Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint which is mainly about data protection issues. Much of the complaint is late and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matters complained about.