LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a coroner. The coroner’s actions were as part of the coroner’s functions, and were not an administrative function of the Council. The matters complained about are therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to provide him with enough support to meet his care needs. There was a period in 2023 when the Council did not respond to Mr X’s e-mails because they were going to a junk folder. The Council needs to apologise for the distress this caused.

Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to reject her housing register application

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the action the Council took in relation to unpaid business rates. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to complaints about council tax and service charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: Miss Y and Ms Z complained the Council failed to secure suitable accommodation for them despite accepting they had a priority need to move. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the evidence given in court and the reports written for it. An absolute legal bar prevents us doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the loss of his belongings after he left his property. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with suitable accommodation. He said he needs a two-bedroom property on the ground floor due to his health conditions. Mr X said the Council’s actions negatively impacted his mental and physical health. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments and liability because the matter has been remedied and there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of a charity which is funded by the Council. This is because the complaint does not concern an administrative function of the Council.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council met Mr X’s need for interim and temporary accommodation since he became homeless and applied for assistance. It also failed to respond to his request for assistance with storage charges and parking charges at the bed and breakfast hotel. This caused Mr X and his family significant and ongoing injustice for which the Council has agreed to provide a suitable financial remedy.

Ms X complained the Council failed to issue an abatement notice despite witnessing a statutory noise nuisance

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to comply with the terms of a trading licence as it is reasonable to expect Ms X to pursue a remedy through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about section 47 notices issued to businesses by the Council in relation to the storage/disposal of their commercial/industrial waste. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy instead.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to issue an abatement notice despite witnessing a statutory noise nuisance in May 2021. It then failed to acknowledge this visit had happened or respond to her complaint. The matter was only resolved in January 2022 following the intervention of a different team. We found fault with the actions of the Council, in not serving an abatement notice, not taking other action to resolve the problem and not responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £500 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement of a debt. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing application. The Council has resolved the substantive concerns since Mrs X’s complaint to us. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate councils’ activities generally.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s resident’s parking permit for his van because it is too high. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing medical priority for Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision and if there was any delay, that did not in itself cause significant injustice

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the suitability of the Council’s offer of a management transfer to Ms X. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate discretionary transfer applications outside Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996

Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to recognise it may owe Miss X a homeless duty when it found a category one hazard at her property. This did not cause Miss X an injustice because it is unlikely it would have led to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns of a bedbug infestation at a neighbouring property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant with exemption for business rates relief. This is because the Council has recently resolved this complaint and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.