LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Also, we cannot consider any matters that are, or have been, subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has refused to respond to his request for information and that it holds inaccurate information about him. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider these matters.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay referring Ms X’s child for tuition after they were excluded from school, delay assessing the effectiveness of its home tuition trial, and delay exploring other options to engage the child in education. The Council also responded to Ms X’s complaint late. These faults caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council unreasonably tried to recover a council tax debt from him, 14 years after the debt arose and without any prior notification. We have not found fault with the decision to recover the debt, but we have found fault with the lack of information provided to Mr C about the debt before it sent a summons and when he disputed it. This resulted in two summons being sent without explanation for the debt, which caused Mr C distress. The Council also delayed in responding to Mr C’s stage one complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £250 and i

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his requests for street cleaning in a timely manner. The Council was at fault. It responded to Mr X’s requests for street cleansing but it acknowledged there were delays in providing the service. This was fault and the Council apologised to Mr X for this delay. We found the apology suitable to remedy Mr X’s injustice. The Council agreed to also update its website to better manage expectations around how it responds to requests from residents for street cleansing.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his relative’s property allegedly caused by a tree belonging to the Council. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to proceed with his claim to courts to determine the Council’s liability for the claimed loss. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome requested.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision set out in Y and Z's Education, Health and Care Plans, failed to secure Educational Psychology input, failed to complete a review within statutory timeframes, and failed to secure alternative provision while Y was out of school. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure all named provision and for delays in completing a review of Z’s plan, causing uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax support. This is because Ms X could have appealed to a Tribunal and there is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide a replacement pod for his recycled paper and cardboard despite first requesting this in April 2022. He also complained the collection crew damaged his recycling bin in December 2024 and the Council has failed to replace it. We found the significant delay in providing a replacement pod amounts to fault. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his recycling waste as scheduled since July 2024. We found the Council’s repeated failure to collect Mr X’s recycling when collecting his neighbours’ is fault. This fault has caused Mr X frustration and inconvenience. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council delayed processing his homelessness application, which affected his priority on the housing register. We find that the Council failed to properly deal with Mr B’s homelessness application and delayed awarding Mr B additional priority on the Council’s housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr B’s housing priority and make a payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s decision to close her housing applications. We find that the Council failed to provide clear information about the documents Ms B needed to provide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because there is no significant injustice remaining and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about missed refuse collections. This is because the issue stems from industrial strike action by the Council’s refuse collection crews and is a matter which affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

The Council was at fault for how it removed Ms X from its housing register and for not allowing her to review this decision. This meant Ms X could not bid on properties or challenge the Council’s decision. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress caused and re-assess Ms X’s housing register application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding because this is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency, a body out of jurisdiction. A dispute about liability is for the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council handling of council tax arrears. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to antisocial behaviour complaints.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his child’s home education. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X is now engaged in court proceedings with the Council. We cannot investigate matters that are before a court.

Summary: Mr X complained that his young adult son (Y) had not received the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault. The Council did not keep under review whether Y had become able to access therapy and tuition again and delayed carrying out an annual review. Considering the way to move forward remedies the injustice to Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed bin collections before and during industrial strike action. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which affect all or most people in the Council’s area, and the missed collection before the strike action does not cause a significant enough injustice.