LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council charged her for domiciliary care. We do not consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council charged her for domiciliary care. We do not consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating her complaint.

Summary: A man complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action about a breach of planning control by his neighbour. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint because there is no sign of fault in the way the Council dealt with this matter to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider the complainant’s grounds of appeal against the decision to refuse his application for a school place. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Mrs Y’s care needs and no fault in the subsequent decisions made about the care she needed. There is no evidence to show that Mrs Y or her family were pressured into accepting care or that they raised any objections at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in Mr X buying his home from the Council. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to provide an acceptable bin collection service. He also says the Council delayed and failed to properly deal with his complaint about the matter. We find the Council was at fault for its failure to provide a consistent bin collection service and its delays in responding to Mr D’s complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his concerns about his housing and anti-social behaviour. There was fault with how the Council responded to a noise nuisance Mr X reported and how long Mr X had to wait for a social care assessment. However, these did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to provide training to its housing staff and review how it manages social care assessments.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision that it cannot take enforcement action to ensure a developer repairs a wall and in how it reached its decision that wall does not pose a risk to highways users.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of social workers. Part of the complaint relates to the content of a report for a court and how social workers formed their opinions. These matters are not separable from court action that we cannot investigate. Investigating the remaining matters would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome, and we cannot not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council communicated with Mrs C’s family about paying for her care. This is because further investigation would not achieve a different outcome to that Mr B has already received from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of dangerous parking on the road near his home. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Ms X’s housing benefit and council tax reduction claim. It was reasonable for her to appeal to the independent benefits tribunal to challenge the decision. We cannot investigate the Council’s action to obtain a liability order against Ms X for non-payment of council tax. We have no jurisdiction to challenge a decision made by the courts.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way she has been treated by staff at the extra care housing scheme she lives and believes this has been due to her ethnicity. She says this has had a major impact on her mental wellbeing. While I found there had been some fault with the actions of the care provider, I did not find there was evidence to support Ms C’s allegation that she was treated differently because of her ethnicity.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council caused delays in investigating and resolving her concerns about a noise nuisance from a neighbouring nursery. We found the Council at fault for causing some delays in progressing Mrs D’s noise complaint, how it communicated with her, and its extended delays in responding to her complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her. We found no fault in the methods the Council used to investigate her noise concerns. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is miscalculating the annual increase in council tax due to a flawed method. We cannot investigate a complaint which affects ‘all or most’ people. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X who can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he is disputing liability to pay.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question the merits of its decisions.

Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a neighbour which he says could affect his trees and the amenity of his home. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Any physical effect construction might have on the trees would separately be a matter for conservation area restrictions or private law between the adjoining land owners.

Mr X complains about delay by the Council in taking planning enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly deal with blocked drains which resulted in flood damage to the complainants property. This is because it is reasonable for him to seek a claim of liability through the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers at the time when Mr X’s former partner left the area with their children. These matters are not separable from matters involved in ongoing court action.

Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of information with regard to charging for residential care provision. This is because although there was fault by the Council, we do not consider it caused the injustice the complainant claims, and we cannot achieve his desired outcome.

Summary: the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider Miss B’s case for appeal and a panel member asked inappropriate questions. A new appeal is satisfactory remedy.