LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending his housing benefit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. And it is reasonable to expect him to make a latte appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council about a house purchase. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting financial information from Mr X. This is because there is insufficient fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home. Mrs Y has now moved to different accommodation, and investigation would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer handled a safeguarding referral made about her. She also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. We find the Council at fault for not correctly following the Local Authority Designated Officer process and not communicating in an open and transparent way with Ms X during the investigation process. This caused Ms X uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make service improvements, and give Ms X an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X. This is because most parts of the complaint are late and therefore outside our jurisdiction. Additionally, of the parts that are not late, Mr X has an alternative legal remedy through the courts to resolve his dispute. And because only they can achieve the outcome he is looking for, it would be reasonable to expect him to use that remedy.

Summary: We have found that both councils – Westmorland & Furness and Cumberland – caused delays in their handling of Mr X’s linked complaints about children’s social care. Both will now apologise to Mr X and will take action to improve their respective services. Cumberland will also make a symbolic payment which recognises

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about business rates relief. This part of the complaint was brought to us late and there is no good reason to investigate now. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy for this fault.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not properly investigate a safeguarding referral. She also complaints it delayed providing her with a copy of its report and communicated with her poorly. She says this caused her and her family avoidable and unnecessary distress. We find no fault with the Council’s safeguarding investigation. We find fault with the Council’s communication and delay providing Ms X with the report, which caused Ms X injustice. We are satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Mrs X could have made an appeal to the independent tribunal and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the safety of the Council’s temporary traffic light set up. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council delayed providing her with domestic waste bins which meant she had to pay for a commercial waste collection while also paying council tax. The Council has agreed to refund the amount Ms B paid for the commercial waste collection. That is a satisfactory remedy and I therefore do not intend to pursue the complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s claim for damages as ultimately this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response. The complainant also has the right to appeal to the valuation tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council applying a council tax premium on his property. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. And, we will not investigate the way the Council introduced this scheme because this can only be challenged by judicial review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax empty property premium as it is unlikely we will find injustice or fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

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.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow procedure when considering an application for a premises licence. The Council granted the licence. Mr X says the new pub creates a noise nuisance. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for failing to consult with the responsible authority for planning. It is unlikely the planning authority would have objected to the application; the result would have been the same. There is therefore no injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about applying a Council tax second home premium. This is because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use this right of appeal.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to act on his request for a reassessment of his daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, failure to provide alternative provision, and delay paying for a Speech and Language Therapy report. We find the Council at fault causing avoidable distress, uncertainty, and denied and delayed appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and its failure to arrange alternative provision between 2017 and March 2024. This is because the complaint is late. Ms X’s complaint about matters from March 2024 onwards is premature.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating a safeguarding matter involving Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in reaching the decision to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not removing a vehicle parked near her property and delay in it dealing with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X to justify us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint handling where we are not investigating the matters giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. This is because his complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.