LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to make sure that Mrs B’s daughter was getting the special educational provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. This meant that her daughter missed out on crucial provision and also caused Mrs B and her family distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the missed provision, and a separate payment to recognise the impact on Mrs B and here family.

Summary: Miss E complained the Council failed to secure alternative education provision, after her child could not attend school from January 2024 onward. We upheld the complaint finding the Council did not properly consider her child’s need for alternative provision before November 2024, when it provided an Education, Health and Care Plan. We considered that if it had done so, it would have made such provision. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Miss E as a result and to improve its servi

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision made for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Company Y. She complained the Council wrongly pursued Company Y for unpaid business rates for an office it occupies. She also complained about poor communication from the Council. We found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council agreed to apologise, refund the money paid by Company Y and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X in pursuing this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about applications for discretionary council tax support and council tax exemptions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a bus lane contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the notice through the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in council tax billing. The Council has apologised and taken steps to improve the service. Further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability and premiums because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and part of the matter relates to a body out of jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dangerous tree notice and the Council's subsequent communications as it is unlikely we could add to what the Council has already said.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not cutting back its tree behind the complainant’s property. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about payments on a council tax account. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about invoices raised by the Council to collect a business levy. If Mr X disputes his liability for the charges, it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his garden was damaged when a recycling collection vehicle drove over his grass. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice about its homelessness Prevention duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council unfairly escalated his Level 1 verbal warning to a Level 2 written warning and how it revoked his extended access service to his local library. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has discriminated against him and failed to properly consider his care needs. He said the matter has caused him significant distress and he has had to turn down work opportunities due to embarrassment about his personal hygiene. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in completing the review. This caused significant distress to Mr X. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on which support networks it provides funding to. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust did not appropriately record Miss X’s reasonable adjustments during a meeting. That did not cause her an injustice but the Trust should still take action to stop similar fault happening to others. Also, an Approved Mental Health Professional for North Somerset Council did not inform Mr X of his rights as Miss X’s nearest relative following a Mental Health Act assessment. The Council should apologise for the frustration caused to him.

Summary: Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust did not appropriately record Miss X’s reasonable adjustments during a meeting. That did not cause her an injustice but the Trust should still take action to stop similar fault happening to others. Also, an Approved Mental Health Professional for North Somerset Council did not inform Mr X of his rights as Miss X’s nearest relative following a Mental Health Act assessment. The Council should apologise for the frustration caused to him.

the Council wrongly assessed the noise and disturbance impacts of the development on his property when deciding the application. There is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the grant of the permission and the planning process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council damaged his car. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a ‘freedom of information’ request for any video footage of the incident held by the Council and to make a claim against the Council at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered applications for an equestrian arena and a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered applications for an equestrian arena and a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to allegations made against the complainant as a foster carer. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the volume and nature of traffic using Mr X’s road. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.