LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about a council tax bill she received after moving out of her former home. She said the Council gave confusing and contradictory information about what period the unpaid tax related to and started recovery action despite her challenging the bill. There was no fault in the way the Council decided Miss X’s council tax liability, or in its decision to seek recovery of unpaid council tax.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place a package of care and for failing to consider whether Mr X had the appropriate support through the care assessment. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than necessary to receive a package of care and cannot be sure the Council adequately considered his needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to Mr X and review his care plan.

Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s failure to provide her family with suitable accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter because the Council has now offered satisfactory housing, and we could not achieve a better outcome than that.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council incorrectly invoicing her for care after she had cancelled it. This is

Summary: Mr X complained the Council destroyed his car which he had left in a car park. The Council was at fault. It did not comply with the notice period in line with guidance before it decided to destroy his car. Furthermore, the Council’s notice letter it sent to Mr X lacked information. The Council has agreed it will apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the matter. The Council will remind staff to wait for a notice period to lapse before it disposes of a vehicle it has seized. The Council will also revise its notice letter.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of care and support to her grandmother. The Council has accepted some fault and agreed to our proposed recommendations. We do not consider further investigation is justified for the other complaints as there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made by Mrs Y, about the Council’s invoicing for 2021 reablement care, and delay in its complaint process.

Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to put in place all the provision in Y’s Education, Health and Care plan. We also found fault with the annual review process, record keeping and complaint handling. This caused Y an injustice because they missed out on provision they should have received. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: The Council acknowledged it was funding a health care service at Ms A’s previous care home as part of the home’s standard provision but that did not make a difference to the outcome here. The break in services was a consequence of long waiting lists and not the funding question.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the appropriate funding was approved for Mrs X when she was discharged from hospital. It ordered the recommended equipment for her but could not explain why some of it was not delivered. The Council’s response to Ms B’s complaint was inadequate. The Council agrees to apologise to Mrs X, reimburse the amount of funding it failed to secure for her, and pay a sum which recognises the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Ms X the full amount of fostering payment for caring for a child.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delays Miss X experienced with her housing application. Miss X suffered distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X to remedy her injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Team has failed to properly investigate her complaint of noise nuisance from occupants of the flat above her causing her distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation.

Ms X complains about the council staff misleading the criminal justice system.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application. 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 recovery action taken by the Council for council tax arrears as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s offer to settle his complaint does not fully recognise the distress and financial hardship he experienced as a result of its failure to action a housing benefit appeal. A higher payment is appropriate in this case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor customer service and inaccurate council tax bills. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the waste collection service provided to Mr X by the Council’s contractors. This is because an investigation is unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed dealing with his notification of a rent increase and failed to refer the increase to the rent officer. We are satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice mainly by ensuring the full rent increase is covered.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council is unfairly refusing to allow him to pay his Council Tax bill for 2021/22 over a longer period of time. The Council is at fault as it delayed in issuing Mr X’s Council Tax bill which denied him the opportunity to pay his Council Tax over a longer period of time and with lower instalments. It is also at fault for failing to give proper consideration to offering an affordable payment plan to Mr X in accordance with Government guidance. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress caused to him. It has

Summary: Mr D complained the Council wrongly kept his visitation restrictions in place for a care home where his friend lives. He said this caused him distress. We found the Council at fault as its policy did not set clear standards for when Mr D’s restrictions would be reviewed and how he would be informed. However, as it found his behaviour continued to breach its policy, the outcome would have been the same. Mr D did therefore not experience an injustice as a result of the Council’s fault. The Council should review its policy to prevent any potential future injustice to other visitors with

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt properly with collection of Council Tax for a property he owns. The Council took unnecessary enforcement action. Mr B was charged additional fees. The Council has agreed to repay Mr B £310.

Summary: There was fault as the Council could have done more and could have improved communication to ensure that Mr Y did not miss out on the provision in his Education, Health and Care plan for 2 months. There were also delays in carrying out annual reviews and a social care assessment. The Council’s apology and payment towards the families uncertainty and time and trouble remedies the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to reply to his representation, sent last year, against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and has instructed a bailiff to recover the debt. We are satisfied the Council is taking appropriate action to resolve the matter. The Council says it will reissue the PCN and cancel the debt recovery with the bailiff.