LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to complete an Education Health and Care assessment for her child, Z, within legal timescales, which caused unnecessary frustration and uncertainty. We found there was fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss Y to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters related to the conduct of a social worker and the Council’s handling of his complaints. This is because his complaint could reasonably be, or has been raised as part of court proceedings on a closely related matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her child’s education. Miss X has appealed to a tribunal which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of enforcement action on an area of green space which Mr X says is used as a car park. Mr X also says the Council failed to respond to his complaints. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of parking on the green space. And we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure a suitable educational setting for his child, and the suitability of remedy it provided. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to seek confirmation of whether a pupil had previously hit staff on school transport before reaching a decision about the nature of transport required. The Council will apologise, provide a payment to remedy injustice and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delay in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the plan and the Tribunal can consider a complaint about lost education caused by delay in its process as part of her appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging him a contribution for his care and support and for failing to take into consideration his personal outgoings when completing his financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding as it relates to a body out of jurisdiction and there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the Council has already offered Miss X a suitable remedy via its own investigation and there is nothing further we would add or recommend.

Summary: We found fault on Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw parking permits for residents on his road, which caused him stress as he had to find somewhere else to park. The Council accepted this decision was wrong. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to share information with her about the business rates record of another person. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s social workers have been at fault in the management of the complainant’s daughter’s case. Part of the complaint is late and there are no grounds to investigate it now. We will not investigate the later matters because they can be considered in Court, or are closely related to matters the Court will decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is not complying with its duty under the Highways Act 1980 as the complainant is not caused personal harm or loss to a degree that would justify our involvement.

Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding Y’s special educational needs support and failed to communicate properly with Miss X. This caused Miss X undue confusion and distress. This distress continues as the delay is ongoing. The Council should apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her to recognise the delay and distress caused and reach a decision to ensure appeal rights are engaged.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the temporary diversion of a footpath near her home. We found the Council was at fault for not formally closing the footpath and publicising the temporary alternative route. However, it followed the correct process for the permanent diversion of the footpath and was not under a duty to consult Mrs X directly. We found Mrs X did not suffer any significant injustice as a result of any fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data breach. This is because complaints about data matters, such as this, are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s decision to not grant her priority on its housing register. She said the Council has failed to properly consider her circumstances. The Ombudsman does not find fault by the Council.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against their neighbour, who carried out developments on the land next to X’s home in breach of planning controls. We found fault because of unreasonable delay in taking enforcement action. We also found service failure because the Council cannot access some of its enforcement records due to building safety problems. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. It will carry out service reviews so it can avoid the fault recurring and to plan for how best to deal with the service failure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on reports of a business running from a residential property. The Council confirms it has served multiple notices and if it does not receive a response then enforcement action will follow. We do not consider that further investigation at this time will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not prune some trees because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed Ms X’s homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Also, the Council is currently reviewing its decision and so it is appropriate to let it complete this process.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his concerns about a Tree Preservation Order on trees near his home. He said this frustrated him and impacted his amenity. We have ended our investigation. This is because most of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction, and we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome through an investigation.