LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection investigation and involvement with Mr X and his family. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s council tax banding being wrongly increased. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council’s failed to follow due process when reviewing her son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She also said the Council failed to provide Y with full-time education, consistently deliver special educational provisions (SEP) identified in his EHCP, make payments to Y’s tutors as agreed and effectively communicate with the parents. I found fault with all aspects of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council agreed to pay the outstanding invoices for the ABA tutoring, continue funding his ABA tutoring until Mrs X’s appeal is resolved by the Tribunal and

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of Mrs X’s council tax accounts. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to notify her within statutory timeframes about its intention to amend her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, failed to issue the final EHC plan within timeframes, and delayed handling her complaint. Ms X said this denied her a right to appeal the EHC plan, cost her time and trouble, and caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and find the faults caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice caused. We are satisfied the Council has apol

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her son’s Education, Health and Care plan, and it failed to address all of her complaint. Ms X said this had a disproportionate impact on her son’s physical wellbeing due to the nature of his conditions. She said it also caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Ms X and her son injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council illegally going through Mr X’s accounts without proper consent or authorisation. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for why Mr X could not have complained earlier.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the adult social care precept element of Mr X’s council tax bill. The precept level impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area and such complaints are out of our legal remit.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the assessment and care provided to Mr Y and the subsequent charges for this. We have ended our investigation into this complaint because Mrs X is not an authorised representative of the person affected by the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Y with the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan, causing him to fall behind his peers, The Council was also at fault for charging Mr X school transport fees and for how it handled Mr X’s complaint. This caused injustice to Y and Mr X, however we are satisfied the Council offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow Miss B the opportunity to appeal about the content of an assessment. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s decision to remove two children from a foster care placement. This is because the Council has investigated the complaint thoroughly under its own procedure, and we are satisfied there is nothing of substance we could add to its conclusions.

the noise from her neighbour’s flat affected her health. She also complain

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to complete the recommendations made at stage two and three of the children statutory complaint procedure. Ms X said this caused her significant distress. We find some fault with the Council for the delays in completing some of the recommendations. We have made some recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The complainant said the Council significantly delayed issuing her son’s Educational and Health Care Plan (EHCP) and failed to communicate with her throughout the process. The Council has accepted it was at fault and has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly shared Mr X’s personal information with third parties as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr C said the Council was at fault for underestimating the impact on his property of an extension on his neighbour’s house. He also said it wrongly accepted his neighbour’s application to amend a planning application using the wrong legislation. The Council was at fault for accepting an application to amend the plans using the wrong legislation. This caused Mr C injustice as he was put to time and trouble researching the law. However, the Council was not at fault for its consideration of the impact of the extension. The Council has agreed to pay Mr C a sum in recognition of the injust

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a court report or the Council’s refusal to take a complaint about it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to tarmac over a small grass verge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.