LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to introduce parking controls near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s household waste collection. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay with the complainants application under the right to buy scheme. This is because it is reasonable for her to use her legal remedy via the courts.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council wrongly approved his application for a dropped kerb even though it did not meet the criteria because of the presence of a disabled parking bay. He says that, because of the position of the parking bay and the absence of double yellow lines, his drive is frequently blocked by parked vehicles preventing him from using it. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr B that the parking bay could not be relocated and that the access to his drive would have to be installed at an angle. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and m

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating the complaint.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council issued a backdated invoice to his mother for care which he had tried to cancel and was often not provided. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B both complain the Council has not dealt properly with an application for a dropped kerb and the introduction of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). The Council is at fault because it didn’t properly advise Mr and Mrs B and failed to follow its complaints process. Mr and Mrs B lost the ability to apply for a dropped kerb under a previous policy. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B £50 for their time and trouble and consider Mr and Mrs B’s vehicle crossover application under the previous policy in place when they approached the Council in early January 2020.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B both complain the Council has not dealt properly with an application for a dropped kerb and the introduction of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). The Council is at fault because it didn’t properly advise Mr and Mrs B and failed to follow its complaints process. Mr and Mrs B lost the ability to apply for a dropped kerb under a previous policy. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B £50 for their time and trouble and consider Mr and Mrs B’s vehicle crossover application under the previous policy in place when they approached the Council in early January 2020.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it treated Mr X through a housing for Key Worker’s Scheme. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint, however this has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for a dropped kerb outside her property on two occasions. We found fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s applications and communicated with her about the decision it made. The faults caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: the Council was not at fault for allowing staff from a nearby school to park on Mr B’s street. But it was at fault for failing to inform residents in advance, for failing to properly record its decision, and for failing to properly respond to Mr B’s complaints. It has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice of Mr B and his neighbours.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to a garage rented from the Council. The complaint is made late and the complainant can seek a remedy in court for any losses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of new parking restrictions in a controlled parking zone. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: the Council failed to follow the care and support statutory guidance when placing Mrs B’s mother in a care home. An apology, agreement for the Council to cover the cost of the top up fee and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.