LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of a court ordered report which has been considered in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court, we have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection action. The principal matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been subject to court action and we cannot investigate them. The complaint is also largely historic, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate elements of it that are separable from court action. We have no consent to investigate matters concerning another person.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking and highway issues near the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because part of the complaint is late.

Mr X complains about the Council breaching his personal data to a third party without seeking his consent. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the most appropriate body.

Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint that the Council delayed in considering her complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the injustice caused by this delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services actions in relation to the contact and care arrangements of a child. This is because the matters are subject to court proceedings which place them out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council plagiarised Mr X’s model of work. That is because it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to Court.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not implemented the recommendations of the stage two investigation and review panel. The Council has not properly implemented a recommendation of the review panel. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer a further opportunity for mediation. The Council will make service improvements.

Summary: Ms B complains about the care her son, Y, received at a residential care home (“the Home”), arranged by the Council. She says the Home neglected his personal care, did not involve family in decisions and reviews and failed to properly investigate safeguarding incidents. Ms B says Y suffered a serious injury due to a lack of proper care. She says the Council did not take the concerns she raised seriously. I have found fault in how the Home’s recording of dental and personal care and in how the Council and Home responded to reports of missing belongings. I have not found fault in the Ho

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice regarding building regulations compliance. This is because this is a late complaint and there is no reason why Mr X could not have complained sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed an educational psychology assessment. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a Parish Councillor. This is because the matter relates to an alleged criminal offence and it is therefore a matter for the police. We also cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s social worker gave inaccurate information to court. We cannot lawfully investigate what happens in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council forced the complainant to sell it land owned by his business at a discounted rate. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to seek his claim for significant financial compensation through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about trees close to her property. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education when her son, Y was unable to attend school due to anxiety. The Council accepted it was at fault and offered Mrs X £1000 to support educational opportunities for Y. It has also improved its procedures for the future. We consider this is a reasonable and proportionate way of resolving the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged when Council refuse collectors did not follow procedures. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care plan and did not ensure they received provision in line with the plan. She also complained about poor complaints handling. The Council was at fault. The delays and poor service have caused Mrs X frustration and distress and Y has missed out on provision. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs X a financial remedy for the injustice caused to herself and Y.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care plan and did not ensure they received provision in line with the plan. She also complained about poor complaints handling. The Council was at fault. The delays and poor service have caused Mrs X frustration and distress and Y has missed out on provision. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs X a financial remedy for the injustice caused to herself and Y.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her care needs and completing a financial assessment. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs X’s care needs or completed her financial assessment. The Council delayed sorting out Mrs X’s payments and respite and failed to clearly explain why it would not pay her privately employed personal assistant to support her. It has since credited the backdated payments to Mrs X, although it failed to tell her it had done so. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration the delays caused a

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed investigating his concern his neighbour was using his garden as a builder’s yard and did not take enforcement action. He also complained the Council delayed responding to his complaints and its investigation was not impartial. This caused him frustration. The Council was at fault for delays investigating Mr B’s planning concern and responding to his complaint. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused by the delays.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions when consulting on a draft masterplan or planning application. The Council considered the planning application and has investigated complaints about construction noise and dust without fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in dealing with a planning breach. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end Mr and Mrs X’s approval as Shared Lives carers. That is because the complaint is late.