LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his children because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it responded to Miss X’s complaint about the care it provided to her child. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and pay her £200. It will also begin a stage two investigation of Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint’s procedure.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with education when they did not attend school due to anxiety, from May 2023 to date. We cannot investigate the period after November 2023 when the Council issued an Education, Health and Care Plan which Ms X appealed. The loss of education is too closely linked to the matters subject to appeal. For the period May to November 2023, we have found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considers the impact on air quality when deciding planning applications. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out an Occupational Therapy assessment as part of an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because Mrs X has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to repair and reopen a closed public footpath. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue this matter at court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave incorrect advice to submit a discharge of condition application in order to agree the methodology for a heritage report required under a planning condition. The Council gave incorrect advice meaning Mr X incurred avoidable expenses and caused delay. The Council agrees to reimburse the application fee as well as making a symbolic payment to acknowledge his frustration.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for support from the Household Support Fund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about being locked out of a Council car park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to tell him about his neighbour’s planning application. He has known about this for more than two years therefore this part of his complaint is made too late. Mr X also complains the Council granted retrospective planning permission without consulting him. We have seen insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation on this point. Finally, Mr X complains the neighbour has damaged his home, encroached onto his property and failed to follow the requirements of the Party Wall Act. These are civil matters and

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of free home-to school transport for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the school transport appeal panel reached its decision to warrant our further involvement. We cannot investigate the actions of a school.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed taking action between August 2023 and November 2024 to displace her as the nearest relative under the Mental Health Act for her mother, Mrs Z after she told the Council she was incapable of acting. There are no records showing Miss X asked the Council to displace her prior to November 2024. The Council acted without fault once it was alerted to Miss X’s request and the Court displaced Miss X in February 2025

Summary: Miss X complained the Council’s children’s services department did not effectively communicate with her when her child was placed into voluntary care arranged by the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to consider Miss X’s concerns through the statutory procedure and apologise for failing to do this originally. It has also agreed to make a payment to her and issue guidance to staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation as the court of protection has decided the care and living arrangements. Any failures in communication do not cause a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it responded to Mrs X’s reports of a safeguarding risk to her children. It took short-term action to reduce the risk and then carried out an assessment to put long-term support in place for Mrs X’s family. The Council failed to follow its complaint procedure, causing Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and take steps to ensure it follows its complaint procedure in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly assess a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to secure the full special educational provision in Mrs X’s daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It was also at fault for delay in completing a review of Y’s EHC Plan. The faults caused Mrs X upset, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y missed out on some provision. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and Y and pay Mrs X a total of £1000.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of her children. We find there were delays in care planning which likely delayed Mrs B from having unsupervised contact with her children. The Council also failed to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her lack of contact with her grandchild, who the Council placed on foster care. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to take her concerns about court ordered contact arrangements back to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to send an amended Education Health and Care Plan to her child’s school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised by Mr B. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.