LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s customer service and complaint handling. That is because the Council has agreed to complete a stage two complaint response to Mr X’s concerns.

Summary: Mrs D complains about planning permission granted by the Council for development of a neighbouring site. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because he cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs D and she had the right to pursue a case in court.

Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered an appeal against the refusal of a school place. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided not to prosecute a builder. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint. The claimed injustice is the fault of the builder, not the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council terminated her son’s day care service without good reason and failed to offer any alternative provision. On the evidence available we found the Council was providing services on behalf of the NHS and so we cannot consider the complaint. Mrs B should complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about advice provided to her by her local town council. The town council itself is not a body within our jurisdiction and although Miss X referred her complaint to Milton Keynes Council it is not responsible for the issue she has raised.

1. Miss B complained about the Council failing to provide her with financial support to enable her to care for C.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to consult with Mrs X’s preferred school when issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. This matter is not separable from the school named, in respect of which she has a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. There is not enough injustice from a short delay in issuing the Plan to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr B, the manager of a fostering agency, complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his request for an uplifted fee for an enhanced foster care placement. We found the Council was at fault in failing to use the correct contract framework and consider all the evidence when reaching a decision on the request. It also delayed in responding to Mr B’s request in writing and in responding to his complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to the agency.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to provide her with suitable interim and temporary accommodation and about its assessment of her bedroom entitlement. We have found fault by the Council in the provision of suitable accommodation and in delays and the way it considered Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom, causing her injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making payments to reflect the upset and inconvenience caused.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to notify him of the commencement of building works at a site close to his home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a problem with pavement parking that Mr X reported to it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X is not caused a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is responsible for damage to his fence and has failed to maintain adjacent land where there are overgrown trees, shrubs, and fly tipping. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy at court if he wishes to claim damages for the fence. The complaint about the condition of the land is premature to this office. Mr X may complain to the Council and return to the Ombudsman if he disagrees with the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council allegedly breaching a tenancy agreement after renting a house from a landlord. It would be reasonable to take court action.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as there was delay in considering a residents request for parking restrictions. There is no evidence of how officers decided not to consult on installing double yellow lines, but the Council has now reached a decision. The Council’s goodwill contribution towards a H bar marking, payment and agreement to keep Mr X informed about fencing to stop vehicles parking on verges is a satisfactory remedy to this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is pursuing overpayments of housing benefit going back some years. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Social Security Tribunal if he wanted to challenge the overpayment decisions. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

he made against a councillor. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s application to buy her Council home. Mrs X could reasonably have taken court action. It was not the Council’s responsibility to ensure Mrs X served the correct delay notices. Nor was the Council directly responsible for costs and financial loss related to an emergency solicitor’s appointment.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the the Council delayed considering, then subsequently refused the complainants request for an External Wall System Fire Review certificate. This is because we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints from leaseholder about the actions of the Council as freeholders.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral about an incident at her son’s school. She also complained that the Council has not supported or helped her to home school her son. Miss X said this caused stress, uncertainty, had a significant emotional impact on her and her son, and meant her son missed out on education. We find the Council at fault for failing to support Miss X to home educate her son. This caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised, has agreed to make a payment to reflect the injustice caused, and

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to exempt the complainant from paying Council Tax. This is because it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal against the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide adequate support for her adopted son. This is because the Council has agreed to carry out an investigation under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning and enforcement action against a property next to his home. There is a current appeal being considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Mr X can make a fresh complaint once the Planning Inspector has decided the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not offering Mr X different housing. There is no fault in the Council’s current approach. Mr X’s complaint about the Council offering him his current home is late and he could have taken court action on that.