LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s process for applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. This is because the Council accepted its error and has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a remedy for Ms X’s injustice and improving its service for others.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the decision to remove her child from her care and place them for adoption more than 10 years ago, or the evidence produced by the social worker at the time. The issues complained about occurred during court proceedings, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the remedy offered for a Children Services’ complaint. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an alleged data breach by the Council. This is because this is a complaint about data matters which are best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of its investigation into his reports of a light nuisance. He also complained about how it responded to his complaint about a neighbour’s parked vehicle. We find the Council at fault for failing to serve an abatement notice when it had identified a statutory light nuisance. It was also at fault for poor complaint handling and communication. This has caused Mr X significant frustration and distress, and he has spent considerable time and trouble trying to resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to M

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with allegations made about her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a contractor switched off his solar panels when carrying out works to his property and about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council was wrong to report him to the Police. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In relation to his complaint about data sharing, the Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed to consider these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about change the Council made to its taxi licensing policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council changed its policy, we cannot tell the Council to make the changes Mr X wants and we cannot decide whether the Council has discriminated against Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care her late father Mr Y received from a Council-commissioned care provider. The Care Provider has investigated Miss X’s concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add anything to the Care Provider’s response or achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council decision to amend its taxi licencing policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care and support Mr Y received. We find the care provider at fault for billing Mr Y for support hours he did not receive and for delays in responding to Mrs X. The care provider has agreed to apologise, refund the overcharged care hours, and make a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failing to invite him to review meetings or its assessment reports for the court. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings and we also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mr X complained Care Plus Group Ltd, acting on behalf of the Council, unsafely discharged his late father Mr Y from residential respite care to his home without proper assessments and care planning. There was fault in the assessment and care planning process, which caused distress to Mr Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X. It will also work with Care Plus Group Ltd to produce an action plan of changes to policies, processes, and staff training, to address the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child in 2019. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council approved a planning application for development next to her property without good reasons and against the officer’s recommendation to refuse it. We have found fault in that the Council failed to provide any reasons for the decision which caused significant distress and uncertainty to Miss B as to why the decision had been made. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, pay her £500 and provide training to members of the planning committee.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice because Mr Y has already been to court about the matter, and we cannot investigate when happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. The Council has refunded the cost of Mrs Y’s care and apologised to her daughter, Mrs X. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more meaningful.

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with allegations against him which it referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer. Minutes were not accurate and failed to show consideration of a recommendation. This caused him lost opportunity and uncertainty about whether the recommendation needed further action. The Council agreed to send him a written apology, remind relevant officers to ensure recommendations from previous meetings are considered and decided, as well as reminding minute takers of the need to accurately record those in attendance.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of Mr X and his children between 2021 and 2024. The matters he complained of are closely related to matters that were or could reasonably have been mentioned during family court proceedings. A legal bar prevents us investigating them. We cannot investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it concerns matters we are legally prevented from investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changed appointment dates resulting in loss of earnings. This is because investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or result in a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his claim after his car was allegedly damaged by a dropped curb. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to approach the courts, who are better placed to consider the issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach during court proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider what happened in court. And also because the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider.