LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a penalty charge notice as Mr X could have asked the court to consider his case.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her vehicle crossover application and about pre-application advice she received. We did not find fault with how the Council decided Ms X’s application. However, we did find fault by the Council in the advice it gave Ms X and in how it handled her complaints. The Council agreed to refund Ms X the vehicle crossover application fee and send her a letter of apology.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a missed garden waste collection. This is because the Council was not at fault for not offering a refund and Mr B has not suffered a serious injustice as a result of the Council’s handling of this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice issued by the Council for fly-tipping. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to have challenged the notice in court.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council was wrong to charge her for a stay in a care home and delayed telling her about the cost. Mrs X’s stay in the care home did not fall in an exception category. However, the Council failed to properly consider the care and support statutory guidance about temporary stays in care homes and failed to keep detailed records about the advice provided about the cost. An apology, a new financial assessment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to complaints about fly-tipping. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missed bin collection by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused a significant and person injustice as a result of the alleged failing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council to maintain public trees in its area, or the adequacy of the works since carried out. With respect to inaction and delay, there is insufficient evidence of an injustice and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. In relation to the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the works done since, the Council has yet to be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond. We do not therefore have jurisdiction to consider these more recent matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that poorly secured, communal refuse bins have caused damage to vehicles. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an information request as it is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s planning application. Mr X used his right to appeal the decision to the Planning Inspector. He also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector about delays, and there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s challenge to a Parking Charge Notice. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a sign outside the complainant’s shop. This is because the Council has re-opened the complaint and will reconsider it.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not done enough to address traffic issues around a school close to his home. We will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled a child protection matter regarding his son. He says the Council was biased against him, it failed to give him enough notice to attend meetings, and it failed to communicate with him properly and engage him in the process. We find the Council was at fault for its communication and engagement with Mr D, its delays in starting a risk assessment and its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s report of washing being hung out in the front garden of a property in his locale. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice as we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not inform the Department of Work and Pensions that Mr X had been admitted permanently to a residential care home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consider her complaint about a lack of response to her reports of illegal parking. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by investigating her complaint under its complaints procedure, which is a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice about dog boarding licence procedure. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms J complained the Council caused delays in deciding her housing register application and failed to respond to her complaint as set out in its policy. She also said its housing service officers customer service was poor. We found the Council’s customer service was poor, and there were delays in deciding Ms J’s application and the Council’s complaints handling. The Council’s apology and proposed remedy to Ms J was appropriate to remedy the distress and uncertainty it caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns raised about barriers on highways and in parks, which the complainant says restricts access for pedestrians and cyclists. This is because we cannot add to the Council’s investigation and cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application. There is fault in the delay in its response to the complainant, however we consider the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy on this point.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to reply to his complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the injustice caused by this and to now complete the procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not maintaining a drain next to his land. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process the Council followed to determine it is not responsible for the maintenance of the watercourse to warrant an investigation.