LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homeless duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the Council’s rejection of her suitability review.

Summary: We uphold this complaint about delay on the Council’s part in completing the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services matters. It has now offered Mrs X two alternative dates in the near future for a Stage 3 panel to complete the procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about planning enforcement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about housing allocations. it would have been reasonable for Mr X to request a review.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her applications to the Council’s Essential Living Fund (ELF) scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to advise her at an early stage that her outbuilding was in breach of planning control. We found no fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change his refuse collection from waste bags to wheelie bins because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for reviews of the decisions on intentionality and suitability of the temporary accommodation provided. She will have a further right of appeal on any undecided reviews which are negative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly pursued a former tenant for council tax. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet the provisions set out in her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council did not complete the annual review or amend the EHC Plan within the statutory timeframe. Miss X also complained about the Council’s poor communication and delays in its complaints process. The Council was at fault and this caused a loss of provision and undue distress. We also found fault in the Council’s poor record-keeping and failure to properly acknowledge Miss X’s concerns about tutoring. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to remedy

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled reports about the condition of Ms X’s property or for how it placed restrictions on her contact. The Council was at fault for how it handled some of her requests for re-housing. This meant Ms X had to wait longer than she should have to receive assistance. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the uncertainty she experienced as a result of the delays providing homeless assistance and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his father being charged for his care home placement. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a car park. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care referrals without the complainant’s knowledge. Although this was upsetting for the complainant, the Council believed it was in the best interest. It has acknowledged it would have been better to tell the complainant about this referral and has apologised for communication errors and spoken with the staff member. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further, and the injustice does not justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mrs X has already appealed to the tribunal about this and we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to the tribunal about the same matter. We will not investigate the Council’s poor communication as the injustice caused is insufficient to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an empty property council tax premium as it unlikely we will find fault by the Council. The Council has offered a suitable financial payment for fault it acknowledged in the way it handled certain other aspects of Mrs X’s council tax account.

Summary: Ms D says the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to pay ongoing monthly redress payments until Ms D is suitably housed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an increase in the price of visitor parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the impact of its failures on Miss X and her son.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not pay him the correct amount for caring for a child in his care and did not consult him before presenting a support plan to the Court. I have ended the investigation. This is because Mr X is satisfied with the outcome of the first part of his complaint. The second part of his complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because we cannot investigate complaints about what happened in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her daughter (Y) with suitable education when she could not attend her school and delayed Y’s Education Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s school attendance process. We found fault with the Council’s failure to comply with the statutory timescales for Education Health and Care needs assessments and with its complaint handling. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council decided Ms X did not qualify to join the housing register. Ms X had a right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision which she could have used. It is unlikely we would find fault if we investigated.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of private property disrepair. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to review its development plan, or adopt a supplementary document, specifically in relation to houses in multiple occupation. The alleged fault does not cause a significant injustice to the complainant, and we cannot achieve the outcome they are seeking.