LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s decision to move Mr Y to emergency accommodation in 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to our attention.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced care and support hours for her adult son, Mr Y, without any reassessment of his needs or a review of his care and support plan when he went into supported living accommodation. The Council was at fault which caused Ms X and Mr Y distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X and Mr Y a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: X complained the Council failed to protect their amenity when it did not decide a prior approval planning application within the legal time limit. X said because of this, they have an overbearing development built on the shared boundary. Based on the evidence seen so far, there was fault causing injustice that should be remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve an abatement notice as it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal this in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing and escalating a penalty charge notice for a moving traffic contravention. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and to have used the court remedy which was available to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about speed cameras. This is because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve the outcome that the complainant seeks. Also, there are other bodies better placed to deal with the issues raised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: the Council failed to investigate Mr B’s complaint about statutory noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. An apology, payment to Mr B, beginning an investigation if Mr B is still experiencing noise nuisance and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s investigation into smoke and chemical odours, because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time it is taking for the Council to provide the complainant with permanent accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot provide outcome the complainant would like.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions as she has taken Court proceedings against the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Council was at fault, because it did not give the complainant a clear explanation of the outcome of his anti-social behaviour case review application, nor invite him to the meeting. Although the Council has since offered to arrange a new meeting with the complainant, it has failed to actually do so. This has caused the complainant frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to make arrangements for this meeting now, and also to offer the complainant a financial remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her and her children with suitable temporary accommodation. We found fault by the Council. This caused Ms X and her children a significant injustice because they were left in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months. The Council agreed to make Ms X a payment in recognition of the costs she incurred in taking her children to school and the impact of the difficulties the long journey caused them.

Summary: We will not investigate this historical complaint about

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s private housing service and its handling of a subject access request. This is because part of the complaint is late and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about data requests.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close the complainant’s housing application. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy for a fault that occurred and because there is insufficient evidence of fault for the remaining parts of the complaint.

Summary: Mr C said the Council charged him too much rent for his business premises and failed to provide evidence to show what he owed. Much of this complaint is out of time as Mr C could have complained earlier so we have not investigated. However, the Council is at fault for the way in which it dealt with Mr C’s concerns. This caused Mr C injustice in the form of distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him a sum in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to assist her with her housing despite her having been given notice by her mother. The Council was at fault as it offered Miss X access to its rent deposit scheme then refused to assist her and in the way it ended its prevention duty and refused to accept a homelessness application. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, offer to carry out a statutory review of its decision to end the prevention duty and reconsider whether she can access the rent deposit scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly rejecting Mr X’s request to activate the community trigger. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome or finding. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice.

Summary: We found no fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about the way it recently pursued her for unpaid council tax dating back to 2008/9. The Council was entitled to pursue her for the debt, despite the amount of time that passed. Enforcement agents initially wrote to her, inviting her to make contact and arrange repayment, before visiting her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X‘s request for the records of his time in care. There is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its stage two investigation and providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant by its delay.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to reply to his complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has now agreed to complete the procedure.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council arranged a care package for Mrs X between March and September 2021 that they had not requested and did not agree to, and that it failed to end the care package when they asked it to. Mr and Mrs X further complained the Council did not properly consider their complaint about it and a safeguarding matter. The Council failed to cancel the care package when requested to do so, and failed to communicate about its complaint handling. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X, cancel some of the outstanding care charges and pay them £300 each to reco