LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his local welfare fund applications. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to inform Mr X it would not proceed with his Council Tax disability band reduction application if he failed to provide information it requested. Although this did not cause Mr X an injustice the Council agreed to make service improvements to prevent this happening again to other applicants. There was no fault in how it handled Mr X’s Blue Badge application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an adult social care referral. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the part that relates to data accuracy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Mr X appealed to the independent tribunal and the matter is therefore no longer within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a financial penalty for a breach of licensing conditions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline his application for council tax support, and its decision to recover overdue council tax via an Attachment of Earnings. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to tell Ms M and her family about the charges for her short-term respite care and failing to carry out a financial assessment. The Council has already apologised and offered to waive the charges. This remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to properly maintain a road in its area, resulting in damage to his vehicle. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax second home premium the Council applied to Mr X’s account. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to appeal. We cannot investigate the decision his property is two dwellings as it was made by the Valuation Office Agency, not the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of parked vehicles blocking a stretch of cycle lane on his route to work, and that a Councillor did not reply to his correspondence. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor sufficient significant injustice caused to him by the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating. Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a Councillor is premature for us to investigate and it would not be unreasonable for him to make this complaint to the Council first.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s car from hitting potholes in the road. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim for repair costs through the courts. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to complete scheduled repair work to several roads because it is premature.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning enforcement issue as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome at the present time.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s Section 7 court report. The law prevents us from considering what happened in court. Peripheral complaints about the Council’s related actions are inextricably linked to the court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to promote contact between him and his child since 2014. This is because his complaint is late.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Mr Y the Council failed to advise of issues with Mr Y’s placement with a care provider. Mrs X complains the Council did not advise that Mr Y would not be allowed to return to his care provider’s property following being admitted to hospital. Mrs X also says the Council failed to ensure a member of staff was with Mr Y when he was admitted to hospital. Mrs X says this caused the family distress. We have found fault in the care providers actions in failing to advise the Council of issues with Mr Y’s behaviour and terminating his placement without notice. The

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Additionally, part of Mr X’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because we cannot investigate court proceedings. Mrs X can appeal other matters and part of her complaint is premature.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council’s care planning and in the provision of care and support. Therefore, Mr B may not have received all the care and support he may have been entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay him a small financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of council tax recovery. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s roadworks damaging his property, and noise and vehicle access issues. His complaint is a claim of private property damage only an insurer or a court can determine. It is not unreasonable for Mr X to pursue this route to get the outcome he seeks, an outcome we cannot achieve. The noise and access issues are premature as they were not part of Mr X’s Council complaint. It would not have been unreasonable for him to complain about them to the Council first, and any future complaint to us about the same issues would be late.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council has pursued her for a historic council tax debt. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has refused to compensate her for financial losses incurred after she was misinformed about the terms of a Council-run property management scheme. This matter is better considered by a court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as Mr X appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and this means this issue is no longer within our legal remit.