LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of a child protection enquiry relating to the complainant’s children, and in its response to her subsequent complaint. Our intervention would add nothing significant to the response the complainant has already received and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received an education in line with the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2023 and July 2024. The Council was at fault. Y’s school only let them attend for two hours a day and the Council failed to maintain oversight or resolve this despite Miss X’s complaints. This meant Y did not receive the specialist provision in the Plan during this period. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge the impact this had on Y’s education and the distress and uncertainty caused to Miss X

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete an annual review of her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance after a review meeting in May 2023, and delayed issuing an amended final EHC Plan until December 2023. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £200 to recognise the frustration caused to her by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about personal information being shared with a third party without his consent. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of a review panel that considered the permanent exclusion of Miss X’s child from a school. This is because the school is an academy and we have no legal power to investigate the conduct of review panels for academy school.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint, brought by Mrs B, about the care visits from a Council-commissioned care provider and the information the provider gave in response to the complaint. We could not add to the Council’s investigation nor achieve a different outcome, and the matters complained of did not cause Mrs A sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about failings in the Council’s child protection investigation concerning two children she and her husband were fostering. We found the Council at fault for not including all relevant professionals in its investigation, and for not having a safety plan for both children. This caused Mrs X and her husband frustration and uncertainty about whether the Council’s findings are reliable.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council damaged her property when investigating a matter relating to the adjoining property, which is owned by the Council. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Warning without giving him the chance to defend himself. He said the allegation was unfounded, but the Council did not verify events with any of his neighbours and did not provide any evidence for its decision. We found no fault in the Council’s decision to issue Mr X a Community Protection Warning.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching a contract by unlawfully taking and using confidential information and employing a former employee of Mr X’s organisation. The matters complained of are ones where it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in support, because the support complained about was not arranged by the Council. So, we have no powers to investigate the provider in this case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding council tax from Mr X. This is mainly because the Council has now put matters right adequately.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly maintain the complainant’s husband’s grave. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax because an appeal to a Valuation Tribunal has been used.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to consider the suitability of a property offered to her, failed to give her information about the housing register process or the right to seek a medical review, failed to provide her with suitable banding on the housing register, delayed considering her complaints and failed to refer her to the LGSCO. The Council failed to carry out the medical assessments properly and failed to signpost Miss C to the LGSCO. There is no evidence of fault in the rest of the complaint. An apology, payment to Miss C and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the supply of water distributed from Ms X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the complaint, as the Care Provider has already provided satisfactory remedies and made service improvements where appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her request for a disabled facilities grant. The Council has already apologised for incorrect advice it provided in a telephone call. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision Miss X is not eligible for the grant to justify our involvement.

the Council mishandled child protection enquiries by incorrectly recording sensitive details about him and misrepresenting

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications at a site close to Ms X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We found fault in the Council’s failure to consider the complaint about the withdrawal of support from the complainant’s (Mr X) daughters (Miss C and Miss D). The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X and his wife (Mrs X) as they had no opportunity to have their concerns investigated. The Council agreed to apologise and to consider Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out home improvements after agreeing to do so. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that Council contractors caused damage to her property. This is because we cannot achieve what she wants. Matters of damage are best dealt with by the courts.