LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his pre-application planning advice query. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that a Care Provider gave their adult son sleeping pills every other night for seven months without his or their consent. They said this caused them significant unnecessary distress, and they are concerned about the impact of wrongly administered medication on their son. We find the Care Provider at fault. The Council, as the commissioner of the son’s care, has agreed to make a payment to Mr and Mrs X to reflect the unnecessary distress and for exposing their son to avoidable risk of harm.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to matters relating to Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Learning Support Assistance to her child. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions not to enforce against his neighbour’s replacement windows. The complaint about the 2018 decision is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s 2021 decision-making process, or enough evidence of delay in taking planning action, to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault on the Council’s part in the child protection process. This is because the action the Council has taken in response to the complainant’s concerns is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed the flood risks associated with a major infrastructure project. This is because the injustice that Mr X describes, is a matter for the courts. Other elements of Mr X’s complaint are premature.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school fees’ payment. The events are more than 12 months old and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept responsibility for maintaining trees. This is because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled safeguarding concerns relating to Mrs Y’s actions around her son’s (Mr X’s) finances, care and medical needs. Any fault in its actions did not cause the injustice Mrs Y claims it did.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a letter for a court. This matter is not separable from the conduct of court proceedings.

Summary: We uphold this complaint about how the Council’s children’s services dealt with the complainant, after his son was placed on a child protection plan. Whilst the Council did uphold Mr X’s complaint it did not provide a remedy for the injustice it caused him. The Council has now agreed to apologise to the complainant and to offer him a payment to remedy the distress it caused him and to reflect the time and trouble he went to raising his complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to her and a child she looked after from late 2020 to early 2021. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about a matter that has been subject to court proceedings. We will not consider Ms X’s complaint about a lack of support from the Council when she was looking after the child. This part of the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide a personal budget for her child, or how it provided the therapeutic provision specified in a Education Health and Care plan. That is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to appropriately plan for her transition from children to adult care services, and to support her to stay with her foster family until she was 25 on a staying put arrangement it had previously agreed. There was fault in the way the Council considered a staying put arrangement for Miss X. The Council failed to appropriately plan for Miss X’s adult care needs. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £1000 to recognise the frustration and distress this caused her and to reconsider her request for a staying put arrangement with her foster carers.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council’s waste contractors persistently used his wheeled refuse bin and recycling bin to collect rubbish and recycling from other households. The Council acknowledged it was at fault, saying this practice was unacceptable. We found further fault in the Council’s complaint handling. We considered these faults caused Mr D to suffer unnecessary inconvenience, time and trouble. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we explain what action it has agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not arrange alternative provision for her son when she removed him from school. There is no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s son’s case. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr B’s correspondence about a food safety issue. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a councillor because they were not acting on behalf of the Council in an administrative function. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to investigate the councillor’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was made.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. And it is not unreasonable to expect her to report her concerns about data protection and record management to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension on a property next to the complainant’s home. The Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. Without fault, this is a decision it is entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their housing benefit and council tax support accounts. The Council has taken appropriate action by sending two overpayment of housing benefit appeals to the Social Security Tribunal. It has written off part of the council tax debt and is willing to consider a request to write off the remaining debt.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of enforcement action. The complainant has not suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify our involvement.