LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s failure to provide healthcare, failure to make reasonable adjustments or the failure to provide child protection meetings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in any continuing lack of healthcare provision, we have previously considered a complaint about reasonable adjustments and the Council has agreed to respond to Mr X’s complaint about the child protection meetings.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near his property. He also complained about the Council’s planning enforcement investigation. He said the development negatively impacted his amenity. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near his property. He also complained about the Council’s planning enforcement investigation. He said the development negatively impacted his amenity. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near his property. He also complained about the Council’s planning enforcement investigation. He said the development negatively impacted his amenity. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council delayed in completing her son’s final Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) and placed him at an unsuitable school. Mrs B says that due to the delays he was in the school for 18 months, which had a detrimental impact on his education and caused distress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for the delay in issuing a final amended EHCP.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs. This is because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the care of her son, because this matter has been to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed and decided a neighbour’s planning application or the way it has handled a possible planning breach. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the domiciliary care provided to the complainant’s father. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. For some parts of the complaint there is not enough evidence of fault, in others the personal injustice is not significant enough. For the rest of the complaint, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Care Provider’s response.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action when a neighbour removed a hedge and trees in a conservation area affecting his privacy. There is no fault in failing to consider a Tree Preservation Order as the Council was not aware the trees had been removed. However, the Council delayed in starting an enforcement investigation and it should apologise for this.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, in this complaint about the inconsiderate parking of a waste collection vehicle. Although the Council upheld the complainant’s concerns, its efforts to address the issue were not successful at the time. The complainant says the problem appears now to be resolved, but the Council has agreed to offer him a remedy for his time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s her housing application. This is because we could not add anything significant to the Council’s response to her complaint.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to enforce a condition of a planning permission granted by the Planning Inspectorate. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay in dealing with the matter. The Council agreed to act to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to declare the complainant’s property a non-designated heritage asset. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. The complainant has also appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to take enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refuse crew failed to return her garden waste bin to the collection point after emptying it. Mrs X says the Council’s actions cause her strain in retrieving the bin given her age. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council has already made service improvements and corrected the underlying issue with collections. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Mrs X £100 to reflect the inconvenience and frustration she experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a lease agreement for his business. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to pursue a claim against the Council at court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his son, F, with alternative provision or any education between February 2020 and July 2021. The Council failed to provide alternative provision for F between September and December 2020. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a total of £1650 to acknowledge F’s lost educational opportunity and for the upset and uncertainty caused to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to place Mrs Y in a care home closer to Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing further we could achieve as the Council has now moved Mrs Y to a care home closer to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained a council social worker made an improper Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) referral about him. Mr X says this has had an adverse impact on vetting for his job. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to write a letter confirming the Council social worker made an improper referral to the LADO.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to finalise their two children’s amended Education, Health and Care Plans within the statutory timescales after its annual reviews. They also said it caused delays in paying the agreed personal budgets and its complaint’s process was flawed. The Council apologised and accepted it was at fault for errors and delays in finalising the EHC Plans and paying the personal budgets. It also accepts it failed to respond to some communication. We found the Council’s apology was not enough. It agreed to make payment to Mr and Mrs B to acknowledge the dis

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a private housing licence for a property which should not have qualified because it has rooms below the minimum size. The complainant has submitted a claim for negligence against the Council. If liability is denied, then it is reasonable for them to seek a remedy in the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments allegedly made by a traffic warden. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. It is also unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to go to Initial Child Protection Conference and place her child on a child protection plan following the sharing of incorrect information. Ms X complains this led to the Council wrongly placing her child on a child protection plan and caused significant distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to suitably include Ms X in the ICPC process and for failing to suitably consider and address her concerns about incorrect information. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for not suitably considering the impact on