LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y and her disabled son, Mr Z, that the Council’s care and support plan for Mr Z did not provide him or his family with sufficient support. Mr X says this has placed a strain on Mrs Y and her family. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to carry out a re-assessment of Mr Z’s care needs and a carer’s assessment for Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homeless application. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a statutory review of its decision on his case. He will have a further right of appeal to the County Court if the review is unsuccessful and he still wishes to challenge it.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in completing repairs to her temporary accommodation. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty because Ms X has appealed to the county court. We cannot investigate where a person has sought a court remedy.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour’s development. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to adapting a property for her son, Mr Y, to live in with the family. There is no worthwhile outcome that can be achieved by further investigation. We cannot achieve the remedy that Mrs X seeks and parts of her complaint are late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission to a new nearby development and how it responded to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the key outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance from a communal door near Mr X’s property. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response about noise nuisance and the Housing Ombudsman is the appropriate body to consider a complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the communal area in its role as social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to uphold complaints that two councillors breached the Council’s code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaints to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to move a key safe that has been installed outside his bedroom wall. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about safeguarding Mr X as a child. Mr X could have complained to us much sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X’s neighbour has not breached planning control and encroached over her boundary. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant because of the delays. We will not investigate the remaining issues complained about as the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. The faults included delay, failure to properly communicate, failure to provide interim/temporary accommodation, producing an incomplete Personalised Housing Plan and failure to deal with a request for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has handled her housing application. She also complains about the Council’s poor communication and said it had failed to properly consider her and her mother, Ms Z’s medical information. We find the Council was at fault. This caused them significant distress. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to permits allowing certain drivers to pass through a traffic filter without penalties. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to award him an energy rebate causing him distress and financial hardship. We fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s entitlement to the energy rebate payment and gave him incorrect information about the scheme. The Council has offered a suitable remedy in this case. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of concerns relating to noise, smoke, emissions and other pollution created by his relative’s neighbour. There is no fault in the Council’s approach to Mr X’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home Mr X leased to the Council. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to take court action.

Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to properly assess her housing need. We have found evidence of fault relating to a risk assessment and upheld the complaint because of that one error. We have completed the investigation because the fault did not cause a significant injustice to Ms D.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of repair issues at Mr X’s private rented home from 2022. This is because this complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. I have found no fault in the repairs which were reported in 2023 because the Council’s actions were proportionate to the matters he reported.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it dealt with some land adjoining Mrs B’s property. It told her she could buy it when she could not. It then put the land up for sale, although it was restricted from doing so. It also failed to respond to her emails or provide her with the right information, which meant she felt she had to instruct solicitors. It has agreed to make symbolic remedy payments to Mrs B to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s decisions around her father’s care arrangements and its handling of her safeguarding concerns. We found no fault in the processes the Council followed to reach its views. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. Also, parts of the safeguarding process are still ongoing and there are limits to the information the Council can share with Ms D.