LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Ms X’s application for a zero-rate exemption for council tax on a property which she owns. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters concerning an untidy garden at the back of Ms X’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council’s bailiff visited and clamped her car when she was paying her penalty charge notice (PCN) debt as agreed. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice. It has apologised and will pay in total £300.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a wrongly issued penalty charge notice. This is because the notice has been cancelled and the remaining injustice to the person complaining is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council was at fault when it delayed in completing stage 2 of the statutory procedure and refused to progress to stage 3 when Ms X requested this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £350 and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of council tax because it affects all or most of the population of the area.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to dropped kerbs and traffic management in his area. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions concerning his parents’ care and support needs, about the quality of care provided, and about how the Council administered the costs of care. We have discontinued our investigation into how the Council managed the charges for care. This is because the charges for care have not yet been settled and a financial assessment is ongoing. We will not investigate the other parts of Mr X’s complaint, as they concern matters that happened more than 12 months ago.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said when introducing a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in his area the Council failed to properly carry out consultation with the residents and failed to apply the right criteria. We do not find fault in the way the Council introduced CPZ.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council when Mr and Mrs X applied for an Education Health and care Plan for their child. We could achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating at this stage as it is not yet clear what injustice if any has been caused by the Council’s delay in issuing an appealable decision not to assess Mr and Mrs X’s child’s special educational needs. Other matters are outside our jurisdiction.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions about a property of which Mr X is landlord. On some points, we are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has already done. The point about the lawfulness of the Council’s actions is properly for the courts. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice on the Council’s alleged bias.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to take appropriate action to deal with a weed on Council land affecting his property and delayed dealing with his complaint. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the weed. However, the Council did not tell Mr B about some of the action it was taking and delayed responding to a complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s representations about a penalty charge notice as any fault by the Council has not caused a significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to send her a penalty charge notice (PCN) and ignored her communications about the matter. Ms X has used an alternative remedy to the Ombudsman so we cannot investigate. The Traffic Enforcement Centre has quashed the debt recovery order and required the Council to reissue the PCN which it has done.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending the street cleaning service for a private road. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel. The parent complained about the panel’s decision to refuse her appeal concerning a place for her daughter at her preferred school. But there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner about the Council issuing a parking penalty in 2020 at a high charging zone level.

this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a dropped kerb and vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Ms X with housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Also, part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s dropped kerb policy. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice for a sign contravention. Mr X also complained he was threatened with court action. The Council was not at fault. It did respond to the challenge, but Mr X did not receive it.