LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the delay in the Council’s handling of her complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X by the fault accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council- commissioned care provider allegedly turning off Ms X’s freezer whilst visiting her home and causing food to spoil. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a charity is not providing her with her requested reasonable adjustments and about its easy read complaints policy. This is because the actions complained about are not the administrative function of a council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement and community infrastructure levy issues relating to the complainant’s development. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about issues which arose more than 12 months ago, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in securing a suitable educational placement for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it failed to advise her she could appeal the placement named in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council is at fault for not meeting the statutory timescales when arranging annual reviews for Y and finalising his EHC Plans, it delayed in consulting with suitable settings after his placement broke down, it failed to provide Y with the provision in his EHC Plan when he was unable to attend school and it failed to communicate with Miss X effectively. The C

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a review of a homelessness decision. The review decision has been withdrawn, so we cannot achieve significantly more on that. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to consider whether the Council itself or its contractor should do the new review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of traffic at the Henley Regatta. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused Ms X injustice.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development on land at the side of X’s home. We found fault that caused an injustice to X and the same fault may happen again.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not do enough to stop a care home from closing and did not make proper transition arrangements for his daughter, Ms C, into a new care home. The Council is at fault for failing to follow due process when it was aware the care home was having difficulties. It is also at fault for failing to properly manage and plan Ms C’s transition into a new care home and offer a care home that met Ms C’s needs. Because of these failures Ms C will have to move again and the Council’s actions have caused her and her family anxiety, distress, and frustration. To remedy th

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reviewing her child D’s Education, Health, and Care Plan and failed to ensure D received a suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, ensure the provision in D’s Education, Health, and Care Plan is in place without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff, and

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s grant of a short-term contract in an emergency. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions on this point. Nor will we investigate her complaint about the Council’s tender process. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the legal remedy available to them or ask the Public Procurement Review Service to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance coming from a commercial business operating in his locale. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and the Council currently has an ongoing investigation into the matter.

Summary: There was no fault the Council did not allocate a school place to Mr and Mrs X’s child at National Offer Day. Nor was there fault in how it decided Mr and Mrs X’s child was not eligible for school transport assistance. The Council followed its policy and gave reasons which are in line with the evidence I have seen.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about errors in the planning process for development in a garden which borders the complainant’s property. The Council has apologised for the errors in the planning officer’s report. I consider this an appropriate remedy to the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained at the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s need for residential care and charging for this. She said she had no choice but to place Mrs Y in a home of her choice because the Council did not act, and she should not pay a top up for this. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his child’s (Child Y) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) last year. The Council should have better explained why it would not reimburse the costs Mr X has incurred. It has also not done enough to remedy the injustice caused to Child Y due to a lack of special education needs provision for the first two months of school. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X for his time and trouble and Child Y for missed provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions as a social housing landlord refusing Miss X’s request to move her neighbours. This is because we have no remit to consider complaints about the Council’s actions when it is acting as a social housing landlord.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange appropriate information and advice before issuing an Education Health and Care plan for her daughter, Y. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure it received the advice it had requested before issuing Y’s Education Health and Care plan. This delayed Y getting the support she needed, which caused avoidable distress to Y and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and review its existing arrangements for Education Health and Care advice.

caused an injustice as R missed out on educational provision and Mrs

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s allotment provision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and the complainant has not suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging a top-up fee for his mother’s, Mrs D’s care home placement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about how the Council responded to concerns about Ms X’s parents’ finances and overcharging for care. There is not a good reason Ms X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of and decision on his planning application for works on trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, or how it dealt with his complaint. Mr X used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the Council’s decision, which takes all matters related to that application outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling processes where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision taken by the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the LADO made their decision. We cannot consider the rest of Mr X’s complaint as we have no powers to investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.