LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for his child Z. The Council was at fault as there was a delay in receiving an Educational Psychologist’s report and delay in issuing Z’s final Education, Health and Care Plan. The delays caused distress and frustration to Mr X and his family and Z missed specific special educational needs provision for a period of 17 weeks. The Council also failed to discuss a personal budget with Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Mr X and making a symbolic payment of £1300

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information the Council gave a Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the recovery of a council tax debt. This is because it is made late.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve her as a connected foster carer. As a result of that decision, Mrs Y says she has experienced financial loss because the Council has not paid the relevant fostering fees. We have not investigated the whole complaint because the Council’s initial approval happened in 2014 and Mrs Y could have complained sooner. We find fault in some of the more recent matters complained about and the Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions set out at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Civil Enforcement Officer and the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council, and the alleged injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that Mr X did not receive notifications about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X took his case to court and so it is no longer within our remit. What happens next with Mr X’s PCN is a matter for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, should Mr X decide not to pay it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of prior approval applications for telecommunications masts in Ms X’s area. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing service’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s social housing. This is because it falls outside our jurisdiction and instead falls within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Summary: Mrs X complains there was delay in issuing her son’s revised Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was significant delay and insufficient oversight of the process. There was also a failure to ensure her son received an education for a period of time and the Council failed to properly respond to the complaint. The Council explained it had started improvement work to restore its service level for children with Special Education Needs. We recommended payments to Mrs X to recognise the loss of education to Y and the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to act on his report of fly-tipping by his neighbour. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son (B) received an education when he was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council delayed issuing B’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans, delayed obtaining relevant assessments, and did not respond to her complaints. We have found the Council failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty at key points in the 2021/22 academic year. We have also found the Council failed to fulfil its Section 19 duty in the 2022/23 academic year. These faults caused a loss of education provision and support for B. We have also

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about whether she should have a 25% Council Tax discount. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a service request Mr X made, including how it responded to his complaint about the same matter. The Council has given Mr X a response which included an explanation and has apologised. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances and supporting evidence when assessing her housing priority. She also said the Council restricted her housing options. We have not found the Council at fault for how it considered Miss X’s housing circumstances and supporting evidence. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing its review of Miss X’s housing priority. We have found the Council at fault for errors in its allocations system, which led to Miss X being wrongly restricted from bidding on properties that met her housing needs. We h

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a defective shower rail fitted as a disabled adaptation by the Council’s contractors. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to add to the Council’s responses as it has responded appropriately. Further, it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to take his claim for damage/personal injury to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to make another application to the Council’s essential living fund scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council made her a permanent resident at a care home against her will. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The disputed debt due from the estate would be best decided by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with the complainant about vermin and waste accumulation on his property. The Council has apologised for any confusion about the wording of its letters. We consider this is an appropriate remedy for any confusion felt by the complainant. We do not consider that further investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the legality of the Council’s decision to include an area in its Selective Licencing scheme which includes within it properties Mr X owns and rents out. This is because if Mr X wishes to challenge the legality of the Council’s decision, he can do so through the courts so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.