LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care of the complainant’s children because it concerns matters which have been considered in court and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a property neighbouring theirs which has been in a state of disrepair for a number of years and is negatively affecting theirs. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and any new complaint must first be addressed under the Council’s own complaints procedure before we will consider it.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused to consider the planning breaches and misrepresentations of a neighbour whose development has impacted on her. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-tipping. This is because the complainant could have raised a defence in court and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for her.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with care for her son. The Council is at fault because there was a delay to direct payments being made. The Council has apologised to Mrs X. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that she was injured when using a public toilet. This is because the courts are in the best position to decide personal injury complaints.

Summary: We found no fault by the Council and Bornel Care with regards to the care they provided to Mr C, a young man with complex needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s daughter’s financial contributions to her social care costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs D complained on behalf of her daughter the Council failed to take proactive action when a day care service provider failed to renew the lease of a venue it was using. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council took debt recovery action for a penalty charge notice debt after it accepted she was not the owner of the vehicle. The Council has taken appropriate action by apologising and cancelling the charge. It will make a payment to Ms X in recognition of her time, trouble, and distress.

Summary: Mr D complains about the removal of trees in a conservation area. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because there is no personal injustice to Mr D.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not considering the substantive issue.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council repeatedly failed to collect her bins. As a result, Miss X had to make several reports and complaints to the Council. We have found the Council was at fault as it did not collect Miss X’s bins in line with its published policy. We recommend the Council apologise to Miss X and carry out a period of monitoring on her bin collections.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s council tax complaint because the Council has accepted our recommendation to settle the complaint. The Council will apologise to Mr X, pay £100 for his time trouble and distress, revise down the council tax bill on his former home and deal with the practice issues.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out an agreement it made with him to limit the times its contractor would carry out noisy roadworks near to his holiday accommodation business. We found fault as the Council failed to carry out the agreement. It has already apologised to Mr X and taken remedial action. This has limited the injustice caused to Mr X to warrant a further remedy so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near her home. We found the Council was at fault and it agreed to apologise for the avoidable distress caused to Ms X. We did not find the fault affected the Council’s decision to grant the development planning permission.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to determine three planning applications. This is because the complainant used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.