LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We found fault in the way a Council, Mental Health Trust and GP Practice supported a vulnerable man in the community for over two years. Each of the organisations has accepted its failings and the impact of them and has taken steps to prevent recurrences, so we have not recommended any further action. We also found a Hospital Trust failed to properly assess the man’s mental capacity while he was an inpatient. This has left the man’s family with uncertainty which is an injustice to them. The Hospital Trust has agreed to provide an apology and to offer a small financial payment to addre

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about ownership of a blocked drain beneath the pavement outside the complainant’s home. It is reasonable for the complainant to seek a decision from the courts about ownership of the land and consequent responsibility for the drain.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s Member Code of Conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this council tax complaint because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning report for a planning decision. The complaint is made on behalf of a parish council and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints made by public authorities.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to pay for residents care home placements. This is because the Council has confirmed it has paid for placements it contracts with the Care Provider up to October 2022. There is no injustice to residents in the home warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint that the Council failed to adhere to the timescale set out in the statutory procedure for children’s services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a permit to use the waste and recycling centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council delayed removing a fallen tree. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not accepted a man’s application to be disregarded for council tax discount purposes. This because the man will have a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the Council’s decision about this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or the complainant’s retrospective planning application. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. The complainant can also appeal if the Council decides to take enforcement action against him.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly consider an application for planning permission for a development next to her property. We find the Council was at fault in that there were inaccuracies and omissions in the case officer’s report. However, we do not consider this affected the decision on the planning application. The Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused to Ms B.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled the child protection process for her child, S, about delays in the statutory children’s complaints procedure and about the Council’s refusal to accept one element of the stage 3 panel’s findings. The Council was at fault for not actively engaging with Miss X’s domestic abuse support worker and for delays in the complaints process. It should apologise and pay Miss X a further £150, making a total payment of £250, to remedy the frustration and distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes that the Council made to the licencing conditions for a park home site where the complainant lives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs D complains about a contract from 2014. The Ombudsman has closed the complaint because he expects a complaint to usually be made within 12 months.

Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her son, Y, with transport to college. Miss X said the Council failed to properly consider Y’s circumstances and her appeal, and its communication was poor.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint on how the Council dealt with her concerns about damage being caused to her driveway by the roots of one of its trees. Miss X’s complaint alleges the Council is liable for damage to her property, which is a legal matter. The Ombudsman cannot make findings of legal liability for property damage; this is a matter only councils’ insurers or the courts can determine. It is reasonable for Miss X to make a claim against the Council’s insurers and put her claim before the courts if required.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home. That is because we could not add to the Care Providers previous investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provider adequate support to her daughter during the transition to new services, which meant she did not receive support. Mrs X also complained about how the Council communicated about the timeframe for the transition. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for how it managed the transition to the new provider. The Ombudsman does not intend to find fault with the Council for how decided the timeline for the transition. The Ombudsman recommends a financial remedy and service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s granting of planning permission for his neighbour’s extension and its failure to take enforcement action due to increases in the height of the extension and patio. We do not find fault in how the Council considered the retrospective planning application for the increased extension height. However, the Council has accepted it failed to consider the increased patio height and the impact this would have on neighbouring amenity when granting planning permission. This fault has caused of loss of amenity for Mr and Mrs X. To remedy this, the Council has ag

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs P’s complaint about building control inspections because there is no basis for us to seek the remedy she would like; the Council is not responsible to Mrs P in the way she believes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing parking restrictions outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her request to use its land for car parking. We found no fault in the Council’s substantive decision making. But its poor communication caused Ms X avoidable distress and frustration, which it had suitably put right with its apologies and offer to waive its £250 legal costs. The Council also agreed to formally adopt and publish a policy about use of its land for car parking.

Summary: The Council was at fault for ending its support of Mr X without warning and without considering referring him to an advocate. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 and take action to improve its service.