LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X’s sibling’s children. The complaint is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings, which the law prevents us considering.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council may have told Mr X before he sought a Special Guardianship Order. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court action, and any failure by his legal representative to explain the options available to him at that time would be a matter he should take up with that person and then approach the Legal Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the response.

Summary: Ms X complained about the level of support provided by the Council when her child was out of school. Ms X said her child’s education and mental health was negatively impacted. We have not found the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide a child with suitable education provision for six years. Some elements of the complaint are made late, and some are not separable from matters that either have been or reasonably could have been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in her grandchildren’s care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to look at matters linked to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision the complainant must use wheelie bins. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax reduction or exemption as any dispute can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council decided without his involvement that it would place his disabled son, P, in residential care. However, that did not happen, and P is now settled in a day service placement of his parents’ choice, funded through the NHS. There is no evidence that P or his family suffered any injustice as a result of this or Mr X’s other concern, that he was treated differently because he had complained, and so the investigation is now closed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information in a hardcopy format as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a temporary marquee near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to review her son’s Educational Health and Care Plan between 2016 and 2021. This is because we cannot say the issue caused Miss X or her son significant injustice. We will not investigate her complaint about the support listed in her son’s Plan because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the legal notice of delay procedure and, if needed, to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to agree to fund short breaks for her and her husband. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant, who was a foster carer. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he is not in priority need because he has a statutory right of review, which he is exercising.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his request to release restrictive covenants on his property. We find the Council at fault for failing to have a process in place for dealing with these requests. We also find the Council at fault for delays in responding to Mr X, for delays in reaching a final decision, and for failing to provide clear explanations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the introduction of new parking restrictions in Mr X’s road. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning issues related to building works next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delayed response to her reports of a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property and poor communication. The Council was at fault for delay in investigating all aspects of the reported breach and poor communication on planning breach closures. The Council will apologise for the delay, pay Ms X £100 for the avoidable time and trouble caused and give additional guidance to officers.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt with his housing needs and homelessness properly. The Council is at fault because it ended its homelessness duty to Mr B by offering him an unavailable property. The Council has since accepted the full housing duty to Mr B and backdated his application. The Council should also pay Mr B and his partner £250 each.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove a tree next to his property, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council nor personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating. Any damage by the Council’s tree to Mr X’s property would be an issue of legal liability which only insurers or the courts could determine. It would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue that route. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of the charges for his mother’s care, which he says put them to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts it charged Mrs Y for care she did not receive. It has apologised and made changes to its process to prevent this from happening again. The Council was not at fault over the way it calculated the refund for the care Mrs Y did not receive.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action against a nearby garage for repeated breaches of planning control. We found fault with the Council for delays in handling Mr X’s enforcement case. The Council agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X, pay him £250 and make a decision about what course of action to take on Mr X’s enforcement case.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council declined to assess her child, Y, for an Education Health and Care Plan. She says this led to a delay in Y receiving support. We will discontinue this investigation as Miss B had an alternative remedy by which to challenge the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has targeted the complainant due to her race and sent threatening letters accusing her of anti-social behaviour. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant would like.