LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to close a golf course was flawed. Although a change of practice has affected its calculations of profit and loss since the decision was made, we found, on balance, the decision the Council took did not represent fault and the outcome would not have been different.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on Mr X’s concerns regarding planning breaches. The complaint is late. If it were not late, there is no fault in the Council’s actions on the substantive issue and there is not sufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Further it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Miss Y’s complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an incident at his accommodation in March 2020, when he was assaulted by a neighbour, and its lack of support to Mr X causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her medical conditions and disabilities before it decided not to award her child school transport assistance. The Council was at fault because the panel failed to follow the appeal process in line with statutory guidance. This has caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding. Miss X is not a suitable person to represent the children concerned in her complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to replace a shed that burnt down and failed to clear land adjoining the allotments despite agreeing to do this. The Council misled Mr X for a short period regarding a replacement shed but there is no evidence it had an obligation to replace it. The Council should apologise for misleading Mr X and should also inspect the land to ensure it has been cleared as agreed.

Summary: We will discontinue our investigation into Ms A’s complaint. The Office of the Public Guardian is currently investigating concerns about Ms A acting as her daughter’s lasting power of attorney. We cannot say Ms A is a suitable representative for her daughter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused by rodents to the complainant’s home. This is because it is a matter that needs to be determined in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled person’s parking bay which the Council installed outside the complainant‘s home in 2015. There is nothing to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a planning application for a dropped kerb. This is because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to place a bus stop outside the complainant’s house. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of CCTV traffic enforcement in Mr X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the standards of care the complainant has experienced in a care home. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant’s representative seeks.

Summary: Miss X complained about the failure to make a safeguarding referral, the priority awarded to her Housing Register application and poor conditions in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council has taken satisfactory steps to improve safeguarding procedures and staff training following the concerns Miss X reported. We did not find fault in the way it assessed her priority on the Housing Register. There was fault in the way the Council responded to reports of a mice infestation in her temporary accommodation. We have completed the investigation because the Council accepted our fin

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to reduce the number of hours it funds, as part of the complainant’s home care package. The Council was entitled to decide, upon reassessment, the complainant did not require the level of support it had previously approved. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms L’s complaint about how it processed her housing application. It delayed processing it, has an allocation scheme which does not explain whether officers assess studio flats as a bedroom, failed to consider whether her accommodation was statutory overcrowded or whether officers should take a homeless application from her. It failed to properly consider all her circumstances when removing her housing and well-being points. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s planning enforcement team is taking action against a raised patio he built as part of an extension. Mr X should take his own advice on how to proceed. If the Council issues an enforcement notice it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the planning inspector.

will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about anti-social behaviour which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take suitable enforcement action against his neighbour, who he said built an extension without permission and that was structurally unsound. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for delays and inaction. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to act to ensure its online reporting service works properly. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to repair a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court, which is in the best position to decide the matter.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about a highway tree which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.