LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council placing him in unsuitable interim accommodation. He also complained that it would not offer him interim accommodation until he rehoused his emotional support dog and that a housing officer was rude and dismissive towards him. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make him symbolic payments in recognition of the injustice caused to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed and considered a planning application and investigated reports of breaches of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the frequency of the Council issuing Planning Contravention Notices. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving his child. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council investigated the complaint under the statutory procedure.

Summary: The Council housed Mr X and his child in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than the period allowed in law. It also significantly delayed reviewing the suitability of the family’s temporary accommodation. To recognise the frustration, uncertainty and period in unsuitable accommodation caused by the Council’s faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £1,000 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns he has raised in relation to his daughter over the past year. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s property’s council tax band. This is because we cannot investigate the actions of the Valuation Office Agency. The Council is not at fault for using the band provided by the Valuation Office Agency.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with their child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint which stems from the Council’s proposals to close several schools. Ms X has raised concerns about the Council’s handling of her complaint, and we will not look at that as a standalone issue. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator is best placed to consider the decision the Council has now taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and related planning enforcement issues. There is insufficient evidence that any fault in the determination of the application has affected the outcome. The complainant’s concerns about the handling of the planning enforcement issues are premature, as they have not been considered under the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s emergency care needs. The Council was at fault for failing to complete a mental capacity assessment and poor communication. This caused Mr Y to be without care for part of a day and Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the need to carry out mental capacity assessments.

Summary: We found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider a planning application to vary consent conditions for works to a neighbouring business. Nor was there fault on his reports about it failing to properly consider his reports about breaches of planning consent.

Summary: We found no fault on Mrs D’s complaint about the Council failing to consider and assess a planning application and later, an application to vary it. Nor was there fault on her complaint about it failing to consider and act against the developer for breaches of consent. While there was fault in the notification process, this caused her no injustice as she accepted the site notice had been in place, and there had been an advert in the local press.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to provide information to the Planning Inspectorate for the purposes of an appeal. This is because we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint when an appeal has been made to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the relevant Government minister.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision that it does not have to provide alternative provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan, and that the school named in it is unsuitable. The complaint about the delay has already been upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve nothing further. It would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal against the named school.

Summary: the Council took eight weeks too long to issue Mrs M’s daughter G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council issued the Plan without advice from an Occupational Therapist (OT) so the Plan was, in fact, incomplete. The Council refused Mrs M’s request for a specialist OT assessment. The reason the Council gave was invalid. This calls the Council’s decision into question. We do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint the Council refused to make interim provision before it issued the Plan, but we recommend the Council apologises for the delay and reconsiders Mrs M’s request for a specialis

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care Plan and the education provision in place for Miss X’s child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal..

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about building regulations in a property he owns. This is because the complaint is late and some concerns raised relate to bodies outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the court about the issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free home to school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an Educational Psychologist assessment of her child despite it agreeing to do so following the 2023 Education, Health and Care Plan annual review meeting. We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in reviewing Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council delaying completion of an agreed on Educational Psychologist assessment. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £500 for the avoidable uncertainty, frustration and lost opportunity caused by its delays.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his reports of a brook flooding the area around his home. We found evidence of delay by the Council. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, provide him with an update on the action it is taking and make him a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to him.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils handling of her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. She said the Council failed to complete a transition review and failed to secure education and the provision in the plan. Ms X said this distressed and frustrated her and Y missed education and plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council delayed starting consulting with other educational provisions, distressing Ms X. The Council has apologised. This is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to adequately assess her son, Y’s, social care needs. She said Y has not had social care respite to meet his needs. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the statutory complaints process. It also did not consider combining Ms X’s complaints. This frustrated Ms X and caused her uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and complete the statutory complaints process.