Liverpool City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with X’s family. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome that X is seeking.
Source · Ombudsman decisions
LGO Individual Decisions
40,244 total decisions
13,353 investigated
10,886 upheld
82% upheld of investigated
Years: Jan 2022–Sep 2026
40,244 published decisions from the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman investigates complaints about councils and registered social care providers in England. Source: lgo.org.uk.
Decisions
Swindon Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning officer’s report. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
Medway Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court.
London Borough of Hillingdon
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to address a persistent public health hazard and environmental nuisance at the entrance of Mrs X’s property. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons.
Central Bedfordshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice due to its fault. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation into other matters.
Sheffield City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a credit due to Miss X’s mother’s account. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Westmorland and Furness Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his claim for damages after his plants were damaged by Council contractors. This is because it is a complaint about a negligence claim which is a legal matter for the courts to consider …
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address his safety concerns. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide him with an explanation.
Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the disruption to her grandson’s education because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response.
London Borough of Hackney
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council mishandling his homelessness case because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Mr X has exercised his statutory review rights in relation to the decision that he …
Wiltshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council holding him responsible for his late relative’s care charges. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for investigating.
Surrey County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a further complaint about library services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.
Birmingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s school transport assistance application. This is because it was reasonable for her to ask the Council for an appeal by an independent panel.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax liability. The Council has applied for a Liability Order, and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. For the rest, it was reasonable to expect …
London Borough of Islington
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.
City of York Council
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the support to meet his Care Act assessed needs. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and paying Mr X a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.
Essex County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond appropriately to a complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to consider complaints about complaint procedures, and we will not do so here.
London Borough of Haringey
Summary: The Council was at fault for delays carrying out a review into Ms X’s housing allocations decision. The Council was also at fault for its complaint handling. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make …
Sunderland City Council
because there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
London Borough of Croydon
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax support overpayment. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Braintree District Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. This is because for the most part, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through further investigation. Part of the complaint also carries an appeal right to a court which it is reasonable for Mr …
London Borough of Waltham Forest
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support Ms X received when she was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse. This is because the complaint in part, carried a county court appeal right which it was reasonable for Ms X to use and …
Kent County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council’s handling of a complaint about child protection. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X and complete the complaint process without further delay. We consider this to be a …
Essex County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Mrs X’s child who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
Anchor Hanover Group
Summary: Mr X complained Anchor Hanover Group (the care provider) wrongly restricted his visits to his father’s care home. He says this distressed him. We uphold the complaint. The care provider communicated poorly with Mr X, did not review his visiting restrictions and did not …