LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning processes and its decision to approve a neighbour’s planning applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to the complainant’s reports of fly tipping and off-road bikes on a grassed area near their home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s response to the complainant’s reports. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information on a pay by phone parking app which the complainant says is misleading. This is because the complainant could have used his appeal rights and because the Council has already taken satisfactory action.

Summary: Mr B says the Council refused to increase his care hours, wrongly took away his direct payment and refused to respond to any more of his complaints. There is no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s taxi licensing application process. We do not consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. We cannot require the Council to pay for damage to the complainant’s car, this is a matter for the courts. And there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the degree of permitted window tinting on licenced vehicles.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. We will not investigate his complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure by an adult social care provider to contact its client’s next of kin when the client became unwell, and after the client died. The care provider has apologised for the distress caused and has contacted all relevant clients to ensure it has contact details for their next of kin. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council responded to a request to assess and support Mr C. There were delays in the Council’s response, a failure to cooperate between the Council’s different departments and a lack of proactive action from the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy, re-assess Mr C, hold a multi-disciplinary meeting and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an enforcement agent telling a third party during an enforcement visit they were tracking him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove a tree from the pavement in front of her house.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find supported accommodation for her son and did not provide respite breaks for her family. The Council had previously found suitable placements for Y for respite breaks in Manchester but we found the Council did not take sufficient action to find a placement for Y during 2022. Although we found fault by the Council we did not find this caused Mrs X’s son to miss out on a placement or Mrs X to miss out on respite. This was because it seems likely Mrs X would not have accepted a placement in Manchester for Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to stop people parking in the disabled parking bay at the front of Ms X’s property which she applied to have installed. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a charity that the Council removed charitable business rate relief in 2021. Mr X said this caused a strain on the charity’s operation. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the support the Council provides its homeless community. That is because the concerns raised would be better addressed to her local councillor or MP.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of disrepair in his private rented home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council applying a Council-wide block to her email address between 2022 and 2023. The Council has accepted fault, apologised and offered a suitable financial remedy. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to offer appropriate advice or support to her, after her grandchild ‘C’ was left in her care. We upheld the complaint finding the Council delayed carrying out an assessment which found C was a child in need and in treating Miss B as a kinship foster carer. These faults caused distress to Miss B and a loss of fostering allowance payments. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about who owns a disputed strip of land. The rightful ownership of the land is a legal matter and any investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for Council tax as this can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a road closure as there is insufficient injustice caused to the complainant to justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to complete a proper consultation process before it decided to put filters/roadblocks on a road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to hold direct consultations with residents of a road before it made its decision to put filters/roadblocks on the road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss X’s complaint, including the Council’s conduct during court proceedings or social work reports made for court, because the law says we cannot investigate matters considered by court. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s organisation of contact between her and her child because court proceedings are ongoing, and it is reasonable for Miss X to raise those concerns with the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The law prevents us considering matters concerning court action. While some points might be separable from the court action, we cannot achieve what Miss X mostly wants (a Council officer’s dismissal). The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the alleged confidentiality breach.