LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council not making a compulsory purchase of a community asset. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have approached us sooner.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council took too long to act when they advised it they could no longer home educate their child, Y. The Council is at fault for delays in consulting with schools, delay in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, failing to provide Y with the provision in his EHC Plan when Mrs X had advised it she could no longer home educate him and failing to provide a timely response to Mrs X’s complaint and her concerns. This has resulted in Y missing out on a school place in September 2024, he is still at home and the Council expect him to continue to b

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into issues with her privately rented property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr J complained that the Council failed to take action regarding a breach in planning conditions. Mr J says this caused stress and led to damage to his home. There were significant delays by the Council causing Mr J anxiety and uncertainty. The Council agreed to remedy this by updating Mr J and making a symbolic payment for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because the penalty charge notices carried a right of appeal and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting Mr X’s right of appeal and the Council’s agreement to accept payment at the discounted rate of £70 per penalty charge notice provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more

Summary: Business Y complained about how the Council carried out food safety inspections in 2024. We ended our investigation into the complaint. The key issues in the complaint are closely linked to ongoing court action, so it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate them. An investigation by the Ombudsman of the other issues the Business complains about would likely not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Finally, we consider the Council’s apology for delay in its response is a suitable remedy to the complainant’s concerns about delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not agreeing to inform his neighbours that its officers had required him to remove some trees from his land. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal at the magistrates’ court against the Council’s decision regarding his trees. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X caused by the Council to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes he wants.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the frequent changes in social worker and delays with progressing and supporting him to source appropriate long term accommodation for him. We found some fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y. However, we also note the complexity of Mr Y’s case and several factors affecting the Council’s ability to progress the case. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application, which it refused. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing his care needs and the adequacy of his subsequent care and support plan. The Council accepts it delayed in assessing Mr X and failed to carry out a proper assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, carry out a new assessment and make a payment to Mr X to recognise the care costs he incurred as a result of its delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax reduction because he has appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: X complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application that affected the setting of a listed building. We found fault because the Council failed to consult Historic England, and the case officer report incorrectly described the separation distance between the development and the nearest listed building. We made recommendations to remedy the fault and the injustice caused to X, which the Council has accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of dog barking from a neighbouring property. This is because the Council has now spoken to Mr X and he has confirmed the situation is much improved and he is satisfied the Council’s case can be closed and reopened if there is further disturbance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint work carried out to improve the complainant’s home’s energy efficiency. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council had delayed since 2020 completing adaptation work in the bathroom for her son. Ms X said the work was done to a poor standard and remained incomplete. Ms X also complained the Council’s communication with her was poor. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about incorrect information the Council gave him about a Resident Parking Zone (RPZ) in 2020. This is because the courts are better placed to consider his complaint and an investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s claim for damages to his car. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take his claim to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax empty homes premium or a complaint about taking a property out of council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Mrs T complains the Council failed to take enforcement action regarding a change of use to a premises near her home. She says the noise and disruption significantly affects her amenity. The Council failed to update Mrs T regarding its enforcement decisions. The Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her mother-in-law’s council tax account. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.