LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr G complained the Council refused to respond to his complaint at the second stage of the Children Act complaints process and would not tell him the reasons for its decision. The Council has now agreed to resume the complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed its assessments of a child’s Special Educational Needs. Some matters have been subject to tribunal appeals. There is either insufficient evidence of fault with other matters, or nothing more we can achieve. We also cannot investigate what has happened in schools.

Summary: Ms X complained about the actions of the Council when it placed her children on child protection plans. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for poor communication with Ms X at times. It has apologised and told her what it will do to help prevent a reoccurrence. These were appropriate actions to remedy Ms X’s injustice and prevent the fault occurring again.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to increase her housing band based on her and her child’s medical needs. There was no fault in how the Council arrived at its decisions not to award additional housing priority in Miss X’s case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainants home was unsuitable for a guest to stay in, under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow a disabled bay outside Miss X’s home. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiry. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mr B applied for a deferred payment arrangement for residential care fees. The Council rejected it because of a first charge on the property but did not say what other types of security it may accept. This goes against the requirements of the care and support statutory guidance; the Council must have a publicly available policy explaining what types of alternative security it will consider and must clearly explain this. The outcome may have been the same, as the Council may have declined any alternative. The Council will apologise to Mr B for failing to have the relevant policy and fa

Summary: Ms B complains the Council took enforcement action against her for non-payment of council tax. She says this was because of a mistake by the Council. Ms B says she was suffering financial hardship and had to pay additional costs to the bailiff. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council managed the debt before enforcement action, or in how enforcement action took place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial report on an energy company owned by the Council as this impacts on all or most of the people in the Council’s area and so is not within our remit. Mr X is not caused injustice significant enough to warrant our investigating his associated complaint, about receiving an unsolicited email about this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against it to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to cut back a dangerous tree. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: A man complained the Council had not given him enough help in finding his own accommodation despite his need for independent housing. However we do not have reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now offered to carry out a complete review of the man’s housing case.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly approved a third party’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because the decision does not cause Miss X significant injustice and we cannot say the Council must remove the third party’s dropped kerb or approve her own application, as she would like.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a fixed penalty notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries into his late mother’s care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council in concluding and sending her copies of its assessments. I have found fault in the Council’s actions because delays incurred by the Council were unreasonable to Ms X. These delays caused an injustice to Ms X as she was later deemed eligible for Council support that she did not receive until it concluded its assessment. Further, Ms X spent time chasing and complaining to the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request to maintain a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with the matter.

Summary: The Council is at fault for not progressing this complaint to stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to arrange a stage three panel.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council, when constructing a crossover outside of his home, installed a new streetlight when it should only have relocated the old one. The Council was not at fault for installing a new lighting column when carrying out the crossover works.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for his neighbour Mr Y’s extension and its enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its planning process to warrant investigation. The planning permission is not the cause of claimed damage and encroachment onto Mr X’s property by Mr Y, nor the cause of the private civil issues between Mr X and Mr Y. The Council’s enforcement action against Mr Y has no bearing on the civil issues. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaint processes in isolatio

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not replying to consultation comments on proposed waiting restrictions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The injustice is also not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr Y can reasonably make a subject access request for any information the Council holds about him, and approach the Information Commissioner if not satisfied with its response.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange a follow up safeguarding meeting as agreed, in relation to concerns a care home failed to call an ambulance in response to her mother’s seizures. The Council’s failure to communicate clearly with Ms X amounts to fault. This fault has caused Ms X distress and uncertainty and put her to unnecessary time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing application. This because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.