LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s record keeping in relation to a child, Y, who was previously looked after. The Council was at fault for failing to keep and maintain accurate records and photographs of Y. This caused Mrs X and Y avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X on behalf of Y and act to try to locate photographs of Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of council tax liability for several flats Mr X owns. This is because the complaints are late. There is no evidence of fault regarding more recent matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the removal of her child from her care or the decision to place her child for adoption. The decisions were made by a court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to ensure a public footpath was safe to use, resulting in damage to his clothing. This is because the complaint is late and it would be reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. The courts are also better placed to consider whether the Council is responsible for the damage. This is not something we can decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about council tax being charged for his uninhabitable property. This is because we cannot investigate the Valuation Office Agency’s decision not to remove this property from the council tax list.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to backdate fostering allowance payments. The Council has already considered the complaint through the three stage Children Act complaint procedure and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council telling the complainant’s family to remove a bench they had placed close to a relative’s grave. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council charged her for care without advising her of the costs first. Mrs X says she now owes the Council a lot of money and has needed to cancel her care with the Council. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a width restriction which the Council had not clearly signed. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free home-to-school transport for Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of gullies and a highway repair. This is because the court is better placed to consider the complaint and given the courts can instruct the Council to take action and we cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to exercise her right to go to court.

Summary: Ms X complained about diabetes management and care provided to the late Mr Y, when he went into respite care, during his admissions to hospital, and then a nursing home. We found fault by the Trust in its record keeping and monitoring of Mr Y. The Trust acknowledged this in its response to Ms X’s complaint and put service improvements in place. The Trust agreed to provide a further remedy to Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused. We also found fault by Priory Adult Care in its management of Mr Y’s diabetes. Priory Adult Care agreed to provide a remedy to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax and housing benefit because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the alleged failure to deliver special educational provision in his son’s education, health and care (EHC) plan because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the adoption of his child. The law stops us from investigating anything that has or is being looked at by the courts. Mr X will need to ask the court if he wants to stop his child’s adoption.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about business rates liability. This is because we have no power to investigate the taking of court action and only a court can decide liability for business rates.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s appeal for education transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to her daughter Miss Y when she had a mental health crisis. The events occurred in 2022. We will not investigate the complaint because it is out of time.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided it did not owe Ms X’s child, W, the duty to arrange alternative education provision when W stopped attending school. This means it was also not at fault in how it secured the special educational provision in W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate the other matters Ms X complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking into account diary evidence when investigating her reports of noise from nearby business premises. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about gates on a right of way as the matter has been resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council notifies housing benefit decisions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice and because there are appeal rights the complainant could use.

Summary: Ms G complained about the way the Council’s Environmental Health Service dealt with her complaint about a noise nuisance from a neighbour’s dog. We find the Council’s investigation was adequate, but find some fault around its communications with Ms G. This will have caused Ms G some frustration. The Council has made an offer of a symbolic payment as a remedy, which is suitable.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council not making a compulsory purchase of a community asset. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have approached us sooner.