LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s application for a vehicle crossing (dropped kerb) outside her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making process to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install a charging point outside his home. Any injustice the Council’s actions has caused to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Additionally, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed providing Y with some provision and has still not secured and delivered other provision as outlined in the EHC Plan. The Council also poorly communicated with Ms X when she complained. The Council has agreed it will make Ms X a symbolic payment to recognise the provision Y has not received and for the distress and frustration it caused to Ms X. The Council will also apologise to Ms X. The Council will provide us with an action plan whic

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council mishandled a child protection investigation. We will discontinue our investigation. This is because the Council has not yet fully responded to his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s involvement in Ms X’s alleged illegal eviction in 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in her bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council issuing her a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly tipping. This is because Miss X can raise a defence against the issuing of the Notice in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control and concerns about the use of a building. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in supporting the complainant’s wife in removing his children from the family home on false grounds and in denying him contact with them. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of various enforcement and planning matters raised by Mr X. This is because it falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because the matters complained about have been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council damaged Mr X’s property whilst carrying out repairs to the adjoining property, which is a owned by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided not to provide her child with transport to school. She says the Council’s decision caused unnecessary distress and impacted her physical health. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development near his home after refusing permission for similar development. We found no fault in the Council’s planning decision making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council misleading the complainant into paying for an unnecessary application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. The Council has offered to partially refund the fee, less an administrative charge. We consider this is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with his children. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about fault in how the Council handled multiple planning applications for a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance at an extra-care housing scheme. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing the complainant’s entitlement to housing benefit, as well as her dissatisfaction with its entitlement decision about this and council tax reduction. This is because the complainant could reasonably ask for a review and appeal in respect of the substantive issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Disabled Person’s Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s poor handling of his homelessness application and failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to properly consider his priority need and this led to him being denied temporary accommodation for several months. It also incorrectly closed his application and did not carry out suitability assessments for three temporary properties he was offered. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service. We did not investiga

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Council’s provision of temporary accommodation. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable for the complainant to challenge the decision on suitability in the County Court.

Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his planning and building control concerns regarding building works completed by his neighbour. We found some limited fault by the Council for delay in actioning his planning control and fire safety concerns. However, its apology was enough to remedy the injustice this caused him. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing. The Council has offered an adequate remedy for its failure to offer an appointment about Ms X’s options in late 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s general position on how it responds when a temporary accommodation provider wants the property back. Ms X could reasonably take court action if she wants compensation for alleged health damage. Other parts of the complaint should complete the Council’s complaint procedure before we will consider them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in deciding his housing register application. This is because the injustice caused was not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council stopped her housing benefit and council tax reduction without her knowledge. We will not investigate because the complaint is late and there is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner. Furthermore, Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal and it would have been reasonable for her to use it.