LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr C said the Council was at fault for failing to make his neighbour prune his hedge. The Council was not at fault. Any delays were not caused by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to impose parking restrictions in parts of its area. This is because Mr X had the right to appeal to the High Court and it is reasonable to have expected him to do so. There is also not enough evidence of fault in how the Council publicised its intention to impose parking restrictions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X not being allowed to see her step grandchildren.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has refunded Mr X the money he paid and there is insufficient remaining injustice to him to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Dorset Council had already accepted it was at fault when it wrongly provided the complainant’s partner with confidential information about her. The Council will now formally apologise and increase the payment it offered her to acknowledge the impact of this.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly deal with safeguarding concerns they raised about Mr X’s brother’s care of their mother. They also complained the Council should have done more to help Mr X’s brother. Mr and Mrs X said that being excluded from the mother’s life at the end of her life caused them distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement action taken by the Council against the complainant. Part of the complaint is late and we have no jurisdiction to investigate other parts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about vibration caused by large vehicles travelling over nearby road. It is reasonable to expect Miss B to take the matter to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council made changes to his business licence causing loss of income. Mr X has appealed to the Magistrates Court. Mr X also has legal remedies, it is reasonable for him to use, if he wishes to challenge a noise abatement notice or claim damages for defamation.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the quality of care provided to Mr X by Shire House, on behalf of the Council. We have found fault by Shire House in its care of Mr X, in failing to keep accurate records, properly monitor his food and fluid intake and assess the risk to his health or the need for further medical intervention. This fault caused injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy by making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to her and her family, apologising and providing evidence of the action taken to improve Shire House’s service.

Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the Council assessing and meeting her child, Y’s, special educational needs between 2019 and 2021. The Council accepted there were significant delays in assessing and planning for Y’s needs and that it failed to provide a suitable education for over two years. The Council agreed to apologise to Y, pay the financial remedy it has now offered and a further payment to recognise the time and trouble caused to Miss X.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of anti-social behaviour issues relating to her and her neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not taken enforcement action against a neighbouring development. Mrs B says the Council did not properly consider her complaints about flood risk and occupation of the site before the completion of a drainage system. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council completed its enforcement investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council publishing the complainant’s personal information on its website. This is because the complainant has already complained to the Information Commissioner, who is best place to deal with these matters. It would be reasonable for the complainant to pursue her claim for compensation through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s staff or missing items which belonged to the complainant’s mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to enforce byelaws at a quay and caused harm to his business. There is no reason to investigate because the Council has confirmed it is responsible for enforcement and the case does not cause Mr X injustice. Mr X has a legal remedy at court, which it is reasonable for him to use, if he wishes to claim the Council has harmed his health or caused economic loss.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council response to a complaint about the actions of councillors. This is because the complainant is not a member of the public but a councillor complaining about other councillors in their capacity as local political representatives.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include the complainant’s mother’s 50% share in a property in its financial assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the substantive issue to justify investigating.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment of Mr L and Mr N and calculated the personal budget. The Council has agreed to apologise, to carry out a further financial assessment of Mr L and Mr N and it has already waived some of the debt.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in replying to the complainant’s complaint about damage to his mobility scooter. That is because it is not unreasonable to expect him to seek a remedy in the courts or through insurers.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act on reports of overgrown roadside hedges and trees, and on reports of ragwort spreading onto the highway. Mrs X said the hedges and trees posed a danger to traffic and the ragwort was spreading onto her property. We have found some fault in this matter and recommend a remedy to recognise the injustice identified.

Summary: Dorset Council failed to make proper arrangements for Ms B’s son’s transfer to secondary school. This meant his school placement was not finally agreed until October 2021 and he missed one month of education in September and the special educational needs support detailed in his Education, Health and Care Plan. He also missed out on the opportunity to have a planned transition. The Council will take the action recommended to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was being unreasonable in asking her to pay back over £6000 arrears of charges for her daughter’s respite care. She did not realise she had to inform the Council of a change in her daughter’s income because the household income remained at the same level. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions concerning Mrs X’s parenting and the contact arrangements and residence of her children. The matters complained of are not separable from those subject to court action and in respect of which it would be reasonable for Mrs X to return to court.