LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the rise in council tax. This is because it affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed arranging a panel to consider his complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by apologising to Mr X and making a payment to him to remedy the time and trouble he has been to.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incurred delays in considering her application for a Disabled Facilities Grant for her son. She also complained the Council did not properly consider her application. Mrs X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her son and the family. The Council is at fault as it incurred delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant process. It has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and its decision not to issue her child with an Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council has not taken enforcement action when a neighbouring landowner failed to do work to alleviate flood risk to Mrs B’s property. The Council investigated the issue and paid for contractors to find the solution. It then properly considered whether to take enforcement action against the landowner who did not complete the work needed. There was no faut by the Council when it decided not to take further enforcement action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action to remove a tree belonging to the complainant’s neighbour. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr F complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his son (J) who has special educational needs. As a result, he has had to transport J causing a strain on his finances. Mr F also complained the Council failed to follow its appeals process and properly consider his evidence which caused him frustration. We found fault which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to hold a new appeal panel.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of a grant under the clean air scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because the matter was appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a clean air grant to upgrade the complainant’s vehicle.

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of herself and her adult daughter, Miss D. She complained about faults by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board leading to Miss D being unable to go to college and missing out on special educational provision. She also complained about poor communication by the organisations. We have upheld the complaint and found the faults caused significant injustice to Miss D and Mrs M. This includes Miss D missing all her education and essential special educational needs support for about 12 months. Mrs M could not t

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of herself and her adult daughter, Miss D. She complained about faults by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board leading to Miss D being unable to go to college and missing out on special educational provision. She also complained about poor communication by the organisations. We have upheld the complaint and found the faults caused significant injustice to Miss D and Mrs M. This includes Miss D missing all her education and essential special educational needs support for about 12 months. Mrs M could not t

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of herself and her adult daughter, Miss D. She complained about faults by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board leading to Miss D being unable to go to college and missing out on special educational provision. She also complained about poor communication by the organisations. We have upheld the complaint and found the faults caused significant injustice to Miss D and Mrs M. This includes Miss D missing all her education and essential special educational needs support for about 12 months. Mrs M could not t

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about end-of-life care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we would add to investigations already completed by other organisations or reach a different or worthwhile outcome to justify our resource.

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

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y the Council failed to consider evidence relating to Disability Related Expenditure. Mr X also says officers made comments that Mrs Y should not be entitled to various Disability Related Expenditure and there was no support plan in place for Mrs Y. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint. We have not found fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council withdrew a housing offer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. In addition, we cannot investigate the actions of Housing Associations.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for her child, Y, who has special educational needs, and that it failed to follow the appeal process correctly. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider Y’s circumstances, to hold a stage one review and to properly record and explain its decision making. This leaves doubt over the decision reached. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused and rehear Mrs X’s appeal.

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

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed progressing a complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by progressing it to stage two, apologising to Mrs X and making a payment to her to remedy the time and trouble she has been to.

Summary: the Council took too long to update Mrs M’s son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about the lack of alternative provision because of her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Mrs M should complain to the Council in the first instance about the missing assessments ordered by the Tribunal. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for the delay updating B’s EHC Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax listing because it is against a body out of jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to escalate Miss X’s complaint about its actions relating to her child in its care. Investigation would be unlikely to achieve any more than the Council’s own investigation has already provided.