LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Dr B’s complaint about a planning enforcement notice. This is because Dr B put in an appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a carer’s assessment and the support provided by the Council because we could not add to the previous independent investigation, and we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council damaged her property while carrying out work to a Council-owned tree. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to pursue any claim for repair costs through the court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is outside our jurisdiction. The law says we cannot consider a complaint about the content of a council’s Council Tax Support scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has ignored his safeguarding concerns about his child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take any concerns he has about care and contact arrangements for his child to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Business rates liability because this is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency; a body out of jurisdiction. Any liability can also be challenged in the court.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays issuing a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan following a reassessment and for not considering whether it should provide alternative education. This meant the child did not have an up to date Education, Health and Care Plan for a significant period. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her for the uncertainty and frustration she experienced.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it asked Mr X to pay his care home charges and when it found he was not eligible for funding under the Mental Health Act. The Council set out the care charges when he moved to the care home and how these may be deferred. The Council also held recovery of the charges while Mr X’s son challenged the outstanding amount.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly refused to waive the requirement to pay back the Right to Buy discount. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr Y’s request to exercise discretion not to recover all or part of the Right to Buy discount for his home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions before it issued a council tax summons. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions towards Mr X when it carried out safeguarding enquiries relating to his mother. Mr X has raised part of the complaint with the court, which means we have no power to investigate it. Another part of the complaint is not about an administrative function of the Council and is a matter for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman instead.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 for the complainant’s son while he was unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to house a tenant. The law says we cannot investigate a Council’s actions when it is acting as a social housing provider. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of anti-social behaviour concerns, because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the disabled facilities grant process. Some of the matters complained about are late with no good reason to consider them now. In relation to the others, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refunded £505.84 after it revised his council tax bill, instead of the £577.84 overpayment he was due. He said this left him £72 short. We found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s decision to not take further action on a tree outside his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax liability, as he has the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with Mr X’s concerns about a data breach.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find the Council acted with fault or add anything more to their previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer who was responding to Ms X’s noise complaint. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer declining to allow Mrs X’s husband to accompany her into an interview. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. We would also be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already offered by refunding an application fee and offering to re-run the process with Mrs X’s husband present at the interview.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide sufficient support with his homelessness and housing application and that it also failed to provide suitable accommodation for him and his family. As a result, Mr X and his family have been living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which has caused significant distress. Mr X also considers that this has been detrimental to the health and development of his children.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council’s failure to ensure Y received the speech and language therapy (SALT) set out in his EHC Plan is fault. This fault has caused an injustice. Mrs X has incurred costs in employing a private therapist to try and mitigate the impact of the missed SALT provision on her son. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control at a site near the complainant’s home. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal.