LGO Individual Decisions

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

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of excessive noise and a planning breach relating to premises close to his home. We have not found fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X about the conduct of Council employees. Mr X submitted his complaint late, and there is no good reason to consider it now. Even if the complaint was on time, we could not achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline to consider all aspects of the complainant’s complaint about child protection action. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to a wardrobe, care calls being cut short and quality of care. Complaints about damage to property are for the courts. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the quality of care complaints. The Council has agreed to take action in relation to the complaint about care calls being cut short.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was significantly damaged by a newly re-surfaced road. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly charged them for care and support and caused them distress and uncertainty. On the basis of the information we have seen, we found the Council charged Ms X significantly more for care than it should have over a prolonged period. It also failed to respond appropriately to contacts about the matter. The fault we found caused hardship and distress. The Council applied some credits to Ms X’s account to correct the situation, apologised and offered a distress payment of £150. We found the credits do not appear to have covered the whole period concerned an

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled safeguarding concerns. The Council has already looked into the matter and responded appropriately. It has addressed the outcomes Mr X asked for, and further investigation is unlikely to find fault

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for urgent priority on her housing register application. The Council already reconsidered Mrs X’s application during our investigation. It will apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty she was caused by its fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaints of noise from a neighbouring flat. This is because there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has refused to reimburse him for costs to repair damage to his vehicle. This is because it is reasonable for him to pursue the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because the complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault. Mrs X has already referred part of the complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing Mental Capacity Assessments to decide if a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard was required for her son, Mr Y. Mrs X said Mr Y may have been illegally deprived of his liberty since he turned 18. Mrs X said this caused her significant distress. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the correct assessments within a reasonable timescale. This fault meant Mr Y has been deprived of his liberty without the legal authority to do so. This frustrated and distressed Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial paymen

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a financial penalty notice. Mr X had the right to appeal to the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal, and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about rights of way because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the courts about the matter, who are better placed to consider the complaint issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care his deceased father, Mr Y, received and about the Council’s financial assessments. Mr X said the standard of care was poor and the charges were unaffordable. We found the Council at fault for failing to show it explained the financial assessment process to Mr Y in a way he could understand following his capacity assessment, and for failing to properly record or communicate its decision on Mr Y’s disability related expenditure. The Council will apologise for the uncertainty and distress this caused, and review its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an officer’s conduct during an adult social care review. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more and we could not achieve what she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s assessment in 2020. The complaint is late without good reason, but we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating so long after the original events even if we could do so effectively.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s care and support when he turned 18. We find no fault in the Council’s overall decision making but do find fault for it failing to consider Mrs X’s request for an additional day at Placement A. This caused Mrs X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: On behalf of his mother, Mrs B, Mr Z complained about the way the Council handled Mrs B’s care charges following a change to her financial circumstances in November 2022. We have found the Council at fault for failing to recalculate Mrs B’s care charges to include the agreed discretionary disregard of her property. This has caused the family distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide Mr Z an updated breakdown of Mrs B’s care charges.