LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about inaccurate information in a child and family assessment and the Council’s handling of her complaint about the matter. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the substantive matter and it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints handling on its own.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to tell her about suitable social housing that had become available. The Council has upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a noise complaint and its report to a review panel. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council changing the final total amount in an offer to remedy a complaint. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about delays in amending an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect X to have appealed to the Tribunal and the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which issued an invoice for the late Mr Y’s homecare for a period when he was in hospital. The Council has already taken some action to resolve the complaint by apologising and removing charges. It will also apologise, issue an itemised invoice and reduce the outstanding bill by £100 to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action to prevent his neighbour’s noise and light nuisance. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not respond to Mr X’s report about light nuisance. This caused frustration and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and contact him to discuss this issue. We did not find fault with the Council’s response about noise nuisance.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs D’s complaint about the Council failing to pay the full amount of backdated Personal Travel Budget for her children’s home to school transport. It failed to give information when it made the payment showing how it had been calculated. This caused some confusion and frustration. It also failed to keep minutes of appeal panel hearings although has now changed its practice. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s role relating during enforcement action by another agency. This is because the Council have already responded and provided Mr X an explanation. Further investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for his three children. He says the Council has failed to consider the health diagnosis of each child. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to reconsider the appeal, make payment to recognise the injustice and apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the restriction of Mr X’s contact with his child by the Council. Mr X has a right to go to court to seek changed contact arrangements it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, the Information Commissioner’s Office is placed to consider a complaint about data protection and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council issuing her a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly tipping. This is because Mrs X can raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in court if she considers it was wrongly issued.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly sharing Mr X’s personal and business information with a third party. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider how the Council handled Mr X’s data, and the county court is best placed to consider his claim for compensation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a residential development which the complainant says causes flooding on her property. It is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council considered drainage issues during the planning application process, and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled matters when it issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice. He says the Council failed to follow government guidance and it did not give him an opportunity to resolve matters informally. We find the Council was at fault for its failure to follow government guidance without good reason. This caused Mr X frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and implement service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s council tax account. The court considered council tax liability, council tax support decisions carry appeal rights and it is reasonable to expect him to use them, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating the council tax hardship fund decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to Mr X’s car. Mr X has an alternative legal remedy to pursue action through the courts and it would be reasonable to expect him to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled allegations about her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.

Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.

Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.

Summary: The Council followed the procedures set out in the Localism Act 2011 when it decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about his councillors. The Council is not at fault. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise its decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her child, who is in care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a freedom of information request. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.