LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the minutes of a safeguarding conference. This is because we could not add to the Council’s complaints investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit application. The Council has upheld the complaint and apologised. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s car rims and tyres. 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 to expect Mr X to approach the court with his claim.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuitable food product bought from a supermarket. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Mr C complained about a section of cycle lane and a trip hazard. Mr C said as a person with a disability he could not walk safely along this section of pavement. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to respond to Mr C’s concerns and a failure to put the matter through its complaint procedure. We consider the agreed action of an apology, offer of a meeting and issuing of complaint handling guidance provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. Any investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence the Council is at fault for not yet rehousing Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Miss X had the right to appeal to the independent tribunal about it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an investigation into the actions of a councillor. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling following the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and ignoring her vulnerability. The Council did not ignore Miss X’s vulnerability. The Council appointed Enforcement Agent did not follow procedures which was fault and caused distress to Miss X. The Council and Enforcement Agent’s apologies and refunds of the entire PCN fine and charges sufficiently remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay in completing work on a council property. This is because it is not an issue the Ombudsman can deal with.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of planning matters related to his garage, causing him distress and putting him to time and trouble. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate matters subject to court proceedings. We found the Council at fault in its communications with Mr X. We recommended the Council apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council’s decision to de register her as a foster carer. It is reasonable to expect her to have used the Independent Review Mechanism.

will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Community Protection Notice to Mr X. He has exercised his right of appeal to the Magistrates Court to challenge the notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s council tax student exemption. This is because he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission to his neighbour. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complainant, I shall call Miss X, says the Council did not follow national and local planning policies when it approved her neighbour’s application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays after it reviewed an Education, Health and Care plan, and for incorrectly telling Mr X he could appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The delays caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty about future provision for his son, and he went to the time and trouble of preparing for a SEND Tribunal to which he had no right of appeal. The Council has apologised for this oversight and has agreed to offer a financial remedy to properly recognise the injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council contacting him when he told it not to. This is because

Summary: The Council was at fault for overlooking Miss X’s stage 2 appeal request for school transport for her son. This did not cause Miss X or her son a significant injustice as the appeal upheld the Council’s decision. The Council was also at fault for poor record keeping during the appeal process. This did not cause Miss X an injustice. The Council has amended its procedures for future appeal hearings.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to stop the adoption allowance Mr B received for his son. It looked at the financial information Mr B provided and properly considered the use of its powers. Its reason for stopping the allowance – that another authority was meeting Mr B’s son’s needs instead – was not obviously unreasonable.

s X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants application for two dropped kerbs outside his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to his housing enquiry. It is unlikely further investigation would achieve a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.