LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standard committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Mr X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a Member Code of Conduct complaint Mr X made against a councillor. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about her children’s welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and investigation would not lead to the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the adequacy of Council social care support provided to the complainant. This is because we have not identified any evidence of fault with the Council’s communication with the complainant, or how it is assessed her needs for care and safeguarding referrals made on her behalf. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided not to attend a public inquiry to decide whether a developer could ‘stop up’ a right of way.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage allegedly caused by a pothole. The matter is best considered by the courts as it is really a negligence claim.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking safeguarding action in respect of the complainant’s son. This is because the Council’s safeguarding action has been subject to review and consideration by the courts. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to give permission to maintain some trees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of a breach of planning control. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a councillor conduct complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missed bulky waste collection. There is insufficient evidence of fault and Ms X says the waste has now been collected, so there is nothing more we could achieve.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s care charges. He also complained communication from the Council was poor. Mr X said the matter impacted Mr Y’s health and finances. There was fault in the way the Council did not follow policy consistently and communication was poor. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by this fault.

Miss X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan for her child, Y. Miss X said this meant Y lost out on education and support and the matter caused her distress. There were some faults by the Council with how it dealt with Y’s EHC Plan process. This caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge him for a replacement bin when his was stolen because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X complaint about a decision to allow an adoption because the Court made the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application and a later decision to approve a variation to the plans. We cannot add to the Council’s investigation into the original application and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to approve the variation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process for a telecommunications cabinet installation in his area, and how it dealt with his complaint. Even if there was fault by the Council, the cabinets do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Care Break Scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to road safety concerns as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint about the decision made by the coroner on the cause of death of her brother and the coroner’s alleged failure to discuss the matter with Miss B. This is because we have no power to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care arranged by the Council. This is because the Council has accepted fault, reduced the charges for the care, and apologised and offered a payment to the complainant. It is unlikely we could achieve anything further. The complainant would like all information held about the person who received the care. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider access to information rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council recovering care fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.