LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to give him correct information, and the subsequent rejection of his application for the Right to Buy scheme. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to collect Mr X’s refuse and the failure to follow the complaint process. The problems with the refuse collections have now been resolved and his refuse is being collected as scheduled and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. I understand Mr X’s found the Council’s failure to follow its complaints procedure frustrating. However we do not consider this issue alone caused such significant personal injustice as to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this housing complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action on the dispute about his application to buy his home. On other points, either the law prevents us investigating or it is unlikely we could reach a clear view.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s allotment application. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about its handling of her adult son’s (Y) accommodation move and the allocated Social Worker’s approach. The Council has investigated Ms X’s concerns and apologised for the distress and frustration caused. We could not add or achieve anything more by investigating nor achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed taking appropriate action to implement the outcome of the complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council dealt with her son’s special educational needs. We found the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan, causing a delay to her appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s right to buy application because she has not met conditions outlined in a court order.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant’s child. It is unlikely our investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s complaint handling as a stand-alone issue.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a review process for an Education Health and Care Plan. The main injustice from a review is the amendments made to the Education Health and Care Plan and it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a Council owned tree. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune trees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and alternative provision after he stopped attending school in September 2023. We found the Council failed to properly assess its section 19 duties after March 2024 and failed to consider putting alternative provision in place for the child. This caused Ms X and her son uncertainty about what support he would have received had the Council made a decision about its duties. The Council agreed to our recommendations on remedying the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and her son.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of Mr X for outstanding council tax arrears. This is because Mr X has right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it would be reasonable for him to use it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it was reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision of the Council’s Monitoring Officer on a complaint against a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the decision was made, and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the subsequent corporate complaint process in isolation.

Summary: A care home, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged an initial oversight in having a bathing/showering plan in place for Mrs Y before the complaint came to this office. It verbally apologised to her daughter and took action to remedy the situation. There is no further remedy required from this office. There is no evidence to show the care home delayed seeking medical assistance for Mrs Y.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has supported her care and support needs since March 2024. We find no fault in the care agencies arranged by the Council or in the timeliness of the information provided to Miss X. However, we do find fault in the delay in completing her care and support assessment. This delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and complete the outstanding assessment.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end direct payments to his relative Mr Z. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. There was fault in its communication with Mr Z and in its failure to ensure there was a proper coordinated handover of care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Z to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress this caused him. The Council also failed to properly explore Mr Z’s request for a day centre and Mr and Mrs X’s request for respite. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the uncertainty caused, r

Summary: The Council accepted that it had delayed in issuing the complainant’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We too find fault, resulting in avoidable distress and a loss of suitable education for Miss X’s son. The Council had already offered to make a symbolic payment for the lost education and avoidable distress and time and trouble for the complainant. We consider this is a suitable remedy. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral in relation to his daughter Miss Y. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcomes Mr X and Miss Y want.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take, we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about leisure facilities membership fees. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child safeguarding matters. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.