LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning and a footpath order because they are matters for the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of property at a site adjacent to Ms X’s land. This is because past events concerning the occupation and sale of the property fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in how it has responded to more recent reports of anti-social behaviour at the property.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay completing mental capacity assessments because even if there was Council fault, it did not lead to a significant personal injustice that would justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax and a housing benefit overpayment as the matter has been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and a delay issuing the final plan. The matters have already been considered by a Tribunal and we could not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to discuss Mr X’s care arrangements with his relative Mrs Y. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable to bring the complaint to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to continue to treat Mr X as a vexatious complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council acknowledged some failings in the assessment of Mrs Y care needs and made recommendations to address this before the complaint came to this office. Any further investigation by this office could achieve no more.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused him the Local Restrictions Support Grant causing distress. We found fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommended the Council apologise, pay Mr X for time and trouble and remake its decision.

Mr X complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, that the Council failed to provide respite provision for their disabled child.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his mental health. The Council has apologised for errors made and corrected its report. This is the outcome we would have sought had it not already been provided. There is no different outcome an Ombudsman investigation would achieve on other parts of the complaint, and not enough evidence of fault by the Council which would have changed the outcome of Mr X’s request for support, to warrant investigation. Mr X also complains about the management of his housing which is outside our jurisdiction so we cannot inve

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, about the Council’s actions regarding its provision of special education and respite care for their child. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress to the family and had a negative impact on their health conditions and wellbeing. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed enforcing a planning condition and wrongly decided there was no breach of planning control, causing her distress, noise and loss of privacy. We find fault in the Council’s communications that did not affect its decision outcomes. We recommend the Council apologise to Mrs X and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council closing some spaces in a car park for a civic visit. There is insufficient evidence if any significant injustice caused to Mr X by fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the care his father, Mr Y, received at Stainton Lodge Care Centre, which the Council arranged for him. He says the lack of infection prevention and control resulted in his father catching COVID-19 from which he died. Stainton Lodge did not tell Mr Y’s family or the Council about an outbreak of COVID-19 before he went to stay there and failed to do a COVID-19 risk assessment. This prevented his family from making an informed decision about placing him there. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X for the distress caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his applications for Local Restriction Support Grants (LRSG) on the basis his business is not holiday accommodation. There is no evidence of fault in the decision to refuse the LRSG (closed) but the Council has not provided clear reasons for refusing the LRSG (open) which is fault. The Council will apologise, now consider Mr X’s eligibility for the LRSG (open) and make a payment to recognise his distress and time and trouble pursuing this matter.

Mr X complains that the Council will not award a grant to his business. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs W complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action in respect of an alleged breach of planning condition. She also says the Council has failed to take action relating to both an obstruction and damage to a public right of way. We found the Council failed to properly consider enforcement action relating to an alleged breach of planning condition. This caused Mrs W a degree of uncertainty and distress and so we have recommended a remedy. We did not identify any fault by the Council with respect to any alleged interference with the public right of way.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of a previous complaint relating to Mr X’s Council Tax liability dating back to 2017.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly discuss his care package with him, delayed contacting him about his financial assessment, sent letters to the wrong address and failed to discuss with him how he could address the arrears which accrued. The Council was at fault when it failed to clarify consent with Mr X, did not keep him updated about his hospital discharge and sent his financial information to the wrong address. There was no fault in the way it calculated his contribution to his care charges. The Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaint and has taken action to addre

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a license for two football pitches as we have not seen evidence of fault in the licensing process. Nor will we investigate the complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to erect a three-metre fence. Any injustice suffered by the complainant is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a child’s special educational needs, including the actions of an Educational Psychologist, this is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction.