LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to mitigate his homelessness when he faced eviction due to unaffordable rent increases then it placed his family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council kept Mr X’s family in unsuitable accommodation for 16 weeks longer than allowed causing distress and affecting the family’s wellbeing. A financial remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X about how the Council has managed matters concerning a statutory nuisance caused by a neighbouring company. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council has failed to amend their son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to deliver the provision set out in section F of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr and Mrs X also complain the Council failed to communicate with them effectively. Mr and Mrs X say this has caused them and their family distress and for Y to miss out on provision. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in completing the annual review process and failing to provide the provision set out in

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving his child. We have already considered some of the concerns Mr X has raised. The remaining issues could reasonably be mentioned as part of ongoing legal proceedings on a closely related matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled his request for information. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this issue.

e have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that her temporary accommodation is suitable. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to ask the Council to review that decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We found the Council at fault. It should apologise and make payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about procedural impropriety in the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice as Mr X could have reasonably appealed on this ground to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his request for communication adjustments. We found fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s request. This fault caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mr X’s communication adjustments and update his records and pay him a symbolic distress payment. The Council has also agreed some service improvements to share learning from this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker wrongly labelling him as a perpetrator of abuse. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now so long after Mr X first became aware of the matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s reports for Family Court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son following an exclusion. We found there was a lack of alternative provision. There was also a delay in completing the 2024 Education Health and Care Plan review process. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed issuing a carer’s direct payment. The Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the matter. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not removing trees on land between his property and the highway, and not repairing his driveway crossover. The complaint on the Council’s initial 2019 agreement to remove the trees is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when deciding not to now fell the trees to warrant investigation. An investigation of the driveway surfacing matter would not achieve a different outcome. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to make a liabilit

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing suitability. The complaint has been made late, and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his review rights.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate action in relation to safeguarding concerns raised in relation to Mrs Y. She also complained about poor communication and a failure to keep her informed. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to concerns about Mrs Y’s wellbeing. However the Council’s poor communication and failure to keep Ms X informed is fault. This fault has caused Ms X distress, worry and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with safeguarding concerns raised about his children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Mr X’s concerns about a data breach, and the courts are better placed to make decisions about who his children live with.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness assessment. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action to prevent reoccurrence of this fault and offered £100 as a remedy for injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about customer service relating to a parking penalty because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and because the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that after renovating a property, Council contractors left building materials which were later used to damage her vehicle. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council as a social landlord.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings.