LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an alleged breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to deliver provision contained in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because an investigation would not add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay following the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a site near his home. He also complained about its decision not to take formal enforcement action in response to his reports of breaches of planning control. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. This delayed the right to appeal to the SEND tribunal and a payment remedies the injustice caused. There was also failure to chase a response from social care during the needs assessment process. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide alternative educational provision as it decided the place at school was suitable and accessible to the child.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of nuisance caused by advertising flags at a business close to his home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council stopped paying her the Special Guardianship Order (SGO) allowance. She said this caused her distress and impacted her financially. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing its stage one response. This frustrated Mrs X. The Council will apologise and repeat its offer of completing the statutory process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters in relation to Mr 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 the process the Council followed leading to its decision to grant planning permission. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where someone has started court action on the matter.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the method used by the Council to calculate the date from which his mother, Mrs Z, would become eligible for funded social care. In our view, there is an error in the Council’s calculations which it should review and apologise for.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver the provisions in his daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan; poor communication and said the Council failed to carry out an annual review in 2023. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mr X and his daughter went without provision. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against development on a caravan site next to the complainant’s property. The complaint is late and there is no reason why the complainant could not have come to us much sooner. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a retrospective planning application on the site. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting additional information as part of a check on parking permit eligibility. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his concerns after closing its planning enforcement case into use of land near his home. Mr X said the Council’s failure to take enforcement action had a harmful impact on his family’s home and well-being. We found no fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by the Council’s supported living placement. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of disabled parking. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging more for drafting a variation on a planning permission than was suggested in its pre-application advice. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to look into a complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. Nor do we consider the complainant to have suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Mrs says the Council breached her personal information resulting in her being attacked. We will not investigate. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as it is better placed to deal with her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the matter. We will not consider other planning concerns raised by the complainant as it is too late.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about it failing to properly consider her neighbour’s planning application for an extension. A report wrongly referred to her side windows having obscured glass and wrongly concluded they were all non-habitable rooms. It failed to identify an error in the plans showing a first-floor side facing window or assess its impact when shown on the proposed plans. There was no significant injustice to Miss J from the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of its pension scheme. We cannot decide whether the complainant’s organisation is liable for pension costs. The apology for delay and occasional inappropriate use of language is a suitable remedy. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.