LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s policy to charge a £21 delivery fee for replacement bins. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to fully remove overgrown bramble from the rear of her property. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Miss X is intentionally homeless. It is reasonable for her to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had not completed the annual review process of her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s poor communication with her and how it dealt with her complaint. The Council was at fault in how it dealt with Y’s annual review process, Mrs X’s complaint and its poor communication with her. This caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to respond to their stage two complaint under the children statutory complaint procedure within the required timescales. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs S and Mrs T’s complaint for

Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Mr X's homelessness when he first approached in 2023 and when he made a further application in 2024. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X. The Council will also act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he had to pay for parking which should have been free. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant or serious enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide a disabled facilities grant to fund a hardstanding outside the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the complainant does not meet the criteria for a grant.

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

Summary: We upheld Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s response to a series of reports of defective highway drainage outside her home. We found the Council at fault for a combination of poor record keeping, poor communication and delay. This caused Miss Y an injustice, as avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we explain how it will now remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y and improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council failed to consider restrictive covenants when it processed a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue her concerns through the court.

Summary: We found fault on Miss W’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her daughter when it decided to place her for adoption. It delayed telling her of abuse by the prospective adopter and a change of circumstances for almost two years. Records were incomplete, there was a failure to promptly get guidance, and case management was weak. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his request for a council tax reduction. This is because it is reasonable for Mr D to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint that the Council has refused to pay her compensation after her fence was damaged by a fallen tree. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs D to take the Council to court.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to install digital screens in its town centre. He says it breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010 which has impacted his access to the town centre and public transport. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about e Council’s handling of a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault leading to the decision to approve the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s reports of human waste which contaminated her property at a car boot sale after the Council had cleaned the site. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to complete her daughter’s EHC plan review and issue an amended final EHC Plan. And has failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education or the provision specified in her EHC Plan since October 2022. The Council’s failure to complete the EHC Plan Annual Review in accordance with the statutory timeframes is fault. As is the failure to ensure Miss Y received a suitable education and the provisions in her EHC Plan between November 2022 and June 2023. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms X’s complaint is also fault. These faults have cau

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue him a legal notice requiring him to cut back vegetation overhanging and obstructing the highway, and its subsequent decision to complete the works and recover the costs from him. It is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of a temporary parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her clinical waste collection. We cannot investigate the actions of the private waste collection company and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: There was a four-month delay by the Council in dealing with Ms X’s request for an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Communication and complaint handling were also poor. This caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment of £150 and provide us with a report on how it has reduced waiting times.