LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for a disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was mistreated and racially abused when she visited the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s noise nuisance complaints concerning bottle banks near her property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s case when she became homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council was also at fault for significant delays responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1000 and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the independent appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal for a Year 4 place for her son was unfair. She says her circumstances were no different from that of another family who had won their appeal previously, and the Chair of the panel knew her husband but did not declare it. We have not found fault by the Council or the appeal panel in these matters.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council when making decisions on housing and homeless applications. The Council considered all the information on the housing register application form and homeless form when making a decision. There is no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s response to reports of flooding outside her home and about how it responded to her complaints. We have found the Council at fault for its record keeping, the time taken to investigate Mrs X’s complaint, and some of its communication with Mrs X. These faults caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and inconvenience. We have made recommendations to remedy the unaddressed injustice caused. The Ombudsman cannot determine responsibility for resolving the flooding, which is under investigation and is a matter of professional judgment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss C said the Council did not do enough to prevent her neighbour from making noise. The Council was at fault for delay and for poor communication. This caused injustice to Miss C who was understandably frustrated and annoyed. The Council has agreed to pay Miss C a sum in recognition of this injustice.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. We found some fault with the Council: it failed to contact Ms B until less than two weeks before her eviction, delayed in considering intentional homelessness and did not offer her any accommodation until after she had been evicted. The Council has agreed to pay Ms B £250 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed the complainant’s £150 energy rebate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

We will not investigate this complaint about financial loss incurred by the complainant after his driveway was damaged by tree roots. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to take his claim to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s policy on vehicle crossover applications, its use of the policy on her application, or its adoption of that policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes to justify us investigating. The Council is due to review its policy in 2023, which is the result Miss X wants, so investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B applied for a dropped kerb outside his property. The Council’s Neighbourhoods team agreed a crossover could be installed subject to the Tree Officer’s consent to the removal of a tree. Mr B complained that the Tree Officer failed to inspect the tree to decide whether it could be removed causing him distress and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault because it has been unable to provide evidence that the tree officer visited the site and properly considered alternative locations for a replacement tree. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused by this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end a tendering process early. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about missed household waste collections. This is because part of the complaint is late and Mr X could have approached the Ombudsman earlier. There is not enough injustice from recent events and Mr X can pursue a complaint with the Council if there are further issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council is failing to maintain the road where she lives. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to apply to court for an order requiring the Council to repair the road.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s car arising from the Council’s negligence. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court to determine any liability owed by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s safeguarding investigation. There was fault by the Council when it failed to follow up Mrs B’s request to see oral hygiene charts and to meet with her to discuss its investigation. The Council has agreed to take the action recommended to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application or its decision to take enforcement action against him. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to prevent tree roots from affecting Mrs X’s property. It is reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy by way of a claim against the Council and in the courts if liability is not accepted.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s maintenance of surface water drainage facilities near the complainant’s home. This is because the Council has now completed its work to upgrade and clear the drainage facility, and there is nothing of significance an investigation could add here.

Summary: Mr X complained about overgrown vegetation and vermin around his home which he says is “common parts” and his landlord’s responsibility to maintain. The Ombudsman found fault in the way the Council originally investigated Mr X’s complaint of overgrown vegetation and vermin but considers the Council has since provided a sufficient remedy. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s query about “common parts”.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bulky waste collection service. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to reschedule Mr X’s collection or refund him. Even if there were Council fault, its decision does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s terms and conditions for the service, and it was for Mr X to satisfy himself he was content with them before ordering that service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not properly dealt with a penalty charge notice as there is a procedure set out in law which Mrs X can reasonably use to seek to address this.