Draft decision summaries

• Mr and Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. They are also unhappy with the Council’s planning committee procedures. At this stage we propose to complete our investigation because we find no fault in the way the Council made its decision or in the planning committee procedure followed.
• Mrs X said that she suffered confusion, disappointment and uncertainty because the Council took too long to decide who was responsible for repairs to prevent damp damaging her property. On the evidence we have seen so far, we accept this and ask the Council to apologise to her. 
• The evidence currently suggests Council gave a landlord wrong advice about how much local housing allowance his tenant could claim, and its apology would be an adequate remedy for uncertainty caused to the landlord as he did not suffer financial loss as a result of the bad advice.

Assessment final decision summaries

• We cannot investigate Ms A’s complaint about the wording of a court summons. This is because it forms part of legal proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating such matters.
• We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the issue of a penalty charge notice. It would be reasonable for Mr B to appeal to the Council and then to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
• We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council not returning personal belongings removed as part of a criminal investigation. Ms X is complaining too late and an investigation is not likely to lead to the desired outcome.
• We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint that the School’s Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at her preferred school. It is unlikely an investigation would find any fault which caused her child to lose out on a school place.
• We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s management and handling of the construction of a cycle route close to his home. We found fault in the Council’s handling of aspects of the process, but did not find this fault caused Mr D a significant personal injustice.
• We will not investigate Mrs Y complaint about how a Council officer spoke to her during a meeting about a homeless person and the Council's response to her complaint about this. The Council has apologised to Mrs Y and we will not investigate as we cannot achieve more than this for her.

Investigation final decision summaries

• Mr E complained about the Council’s approval of a planning application of an extension to a nearby property, the bricks used to build the extension were not suitable and about how the Council dealt with his enforcement complaint. We have found no fault in the way the Council considered these matters.
• Mr F complained the Council was at fault in handling applications he made to join its housing register and the level of medical priority awarded to his household. We found fault because the Council awarded Mr F child in need points without taking into account all the criteria required for the priority. But this fault did not cause Mr F an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.
• Mrs G complained the Council was at fault in how it reassessed her care needs. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it assessed Mrs G’s needs under the Care Act 2014. We do find the Council was at fault in not conducting annual reviews of Mrs G’s care needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs G for the lost opportunity to reconsider her needs caused by this.
• Mrs H complained the Council did not tell her the outcome of the safeguarding investigation about her late father-in-law, Mr J, despite her repeated requests and failed to give her sufficient information and support before a deferred payment application was declined.  The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and offered a payment in recognition of the distress caused. It has agreed to make an additional payment to full remedy the distress which Mrs H suffered as a result of the fault. 
• Mr X complained about the behaviour of his neighbour, the way the Council dealt with two planning applications and the way the Council dealt with his complaint. We did not investigate the complaints about Mr X’s neighbour as Mr X could take these matters to court. We did not find fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning applications. We found fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints. This led to unnecessary time and trouble for Mr X and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a response to Mr X’s final complaint.”

Complicated complaints

• This summary:

There was no fault by the Council in how it applied its policy and decided to place restrictions on Mr X’s contact with officers. The Council’s limits on Mr X’s communications struck the appropriate balance of allowing him to contact the Council while protecting Council staff and resources. The Council should have told Mr X it was channelling his emails to one officer. But this did not cause him significant injustice. It was not fault for the Council to decide not to accept Mr X as a formal advocate.

Was written in response to this statement of complaint:

1. Mr X complains:

a. the Council unreasonably placed restrictions on his contact with its officers;

b. the Council will not accept him as an advocate even if people choose him, because he has not had training, a disclosure and barring service check, and does not have insurance;

c. the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints;

d. the Council wrongly accused him of verbally abusing an elderly female councillor;

e. Council officers were aggressive towards him, in front of small children who had been victims of aggressive behaviour;

f. disclosed his personal information to a third party without his permission.

2. Mr X says these restrictions affected him and the people he tries to help because it makes contact with the Council difficult. He considers he has been disadvantaged when he has needed to contact the Council about his own concerns. Mr X says the Council has forced him to spend hundreds of hours complaining on behalf of others about what he describes as its unlawful practices.

• This summary:

There were numerous faults in the way the Council dealt with Ms B after she applied to be considered as a prospective adopter. Those faults led to raised expectations for Ms B and uncertainty about whether the outcome might have been different had those faults not occurred.     

Was written in response to this statement of complaint:

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains the Council in its dealings with her as a prospective adopter: 

a. breached the stage 1 adoption plan (agreement) in which it had agreed to work with her in partnership in an open and honest exchange, with the opportunity to discuss and resolve any concerns that may arise during stage 1; 

b. discriminated against her as a single person, showing a lack of sensitivity and empathy and unkind behaviour; 

c. made personal, offensive and unprofessional judgements and comments about her character, leading to her being misrepresented in her application; and

d. provided a poor administrative service, including poor communications.  

Some alternative ways to write summaries

The following examples are where the original summary could be improved.

Original version

• We will not investigate Mr W’s complaint about action taken by the Council over the condition of properties he used to own. We cannot look at why the Council prosecuted Mr W as she cannot investigate court action. Mr W had a right to appeal the orders the Council made and Mr W’s complaint is late. 

This could be re-written as:

• We cannot investigate court prosecutions taken against Mr W over the condition of properties he previously owned. Mr W also had a right of appeal against the enforcement orders the Council made which would have been reasonable for him to use .

Original version

• The Council did not handle Ms J’s homelessness application correctly, so she suffered the avoidable distress of being street homeless, and was at times without suitable accommodation while she waited for the outcome of the Council’s review. The Council should apologise and pay Ms J £1,600 to acknowledge the impact on her of its faults. The Council should also apologise to her sons and pay them £200 each to acknowledge the opportunity they lost to make an informed decision about their future. 

This could be re-written as:

• Ms J was street homeless because the Council failed to deal with her homeless application properly. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her and her family £2,000 in total to acknowledge the impact on them because of its failures. 

Original version

• Following Mrs B’s house move there was some delay in securing a permanent suitable school place for C. However, this delay was not the fault of the Council. C has access to her original school place, and was then given a place at Z Pupil Referral Unit. C’s assessment for a statement of SEN was completed without delay. C was therefore not left by the Council without suitable educational provision. The actions of X School are outside my jurisdiction. 

This could be re-written as:

• There was no fault by the Council in how it arranged a school place for Mrs C’s daughter following a house move. We cannot investigate complaints about the actions of the school involved.”