LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s council tax recovery action. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. The Council has taken satisfactory action because it has removed costs and fees charged.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain a tree behind Miss X’s home and that it kept inaccurate records. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his needs and refusal to build a ground floor extension to his property. There is not enough of evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed waste collections. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about damage to her property. This is because it is not our role to decide negligence claims and the alleged injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mx X complained the Council repeatedly missed their assisted waste collections. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide an assisted collection service to Mx X. This caused Mx X frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax liability. This is because he has already appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. The matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council because of poor communication. It has apologised for this and offered Mr X a symbolic payment which is an appropriate remedy. It has reconsidered Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay and offered him an alternative location. Mr X does not like the Council’s alternative proposal and wants the bay to be in a different location and for there to be double yellow lines at the end. The Council has explained what Mr X needs to do to request double yellow lines. The Council has explained its reasons for refusing Mr X’s preferred option. So there is no fa

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaints about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. While there was delay in responding, this did not cause significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to require contractors to operate with either a Private Hire Vehicle or a Public Service Vehicle licence when providing school transport. This is because his complaint is late and I have found no good reason why he could not have come to us sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her son received appropriate education and provision. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in providing alternative provision for Miss X’s son. It was also at fault for its failure to provide the special educational provision in Miss X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for its communication with Miss X. This caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration and Miss X’s son missed out on education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make payments to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his request for information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take formal action against her landlord for harassment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s housing application. This is because the Council has offered a proportionate remedy.

Summary: The care provider gave a satisfactory standard of care to Mr A although there were some disagreements with Mrs X, his representative. The care provider responded to complaints about individual carers as they arose and that has remedied any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his freedom of information request. This is because it is reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to seek removal of Miss X’s child via the courts, and related matters. The law prevents us investigating what happened in court and the Council’s decision to pursue court action. Peripheral matters are inextricably linked to the court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to notify Mr X about a planning application for a site near his home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Miss X’s car from hitting a pothole in the road. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to pursue her claim for repair costs through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to resolve highway disrepair issues, failing to reply to an email, and failing to respond to the complainant’s Stage 2 complaint. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy which is available, and he has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s failure to respond to an email.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Estates Management Team’s handling of Mrs X’s concerns about a council housing tenant. The law bars us from investigating the Council’s actions as a provider of social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his report about a Council employee littering. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a penalty charge notice for driving a hired vehicle in a Clean Air Zone. The Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice it caused him.