LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s dog warden. This is because an investigation would not add to the one carried out by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed completing a financial assessment when the late Mrs A’s assets fell below the threshold amount and then gave incorrect information about the amount it could fund, as well as involving the family in care home assessments for the purpose of establishing a budget. We found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs A’s family and the Council has now agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax empty homes premium. This is because the Council will invite the complainant to apply for discretionary financial support.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council granted planning permission. This is because we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council did not deal with her request for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) within statutory timescales and her daughter, Y, did not receive a suitable education while out of school. We found there was delay in assessing Y and issuing an EHC Plan. We also found the Council did not have sufficient regard to its duty to ensure Y received a suitable education. We recommended an apology, a payment to recognise distress and a symbolic payment to recognise education that Y missed as a result of the fault we found.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged the late Mrs Y for respite care after telling the family it would be free. He also complained Mrs Y spent longer than planned in respite care due to the Council’s poor communication and management of the case. This caused the family distress. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide clear and timely information about charges for Mrs Y’s respite care. But we did not find the Council at fault over the time Mrs Y spent in respite. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint that her car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain a road. This is because it is reasonable for Miss C to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council’s actions jeopardised her business, caused distress and financial loss. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been taken to Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport provided by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about difficulties in arranging a medical waste collection as there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused to the complainant to justify our further action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) involving his neighbour. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, or they concern matters we either cannot investigate or will not investigate because there is another body better placed to do so

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. This is because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s application for post-16 transport. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about missed social care and education provision. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve a planning Enforcement Notice on the complainant. This is because he has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to ends its housing duty to Miss X or its refusal to accept a new homeless application. It is reasonable for Miss X to pursue this matter through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide an appropriate remedy when it accepted it delayed completing an annual review of her son, Y’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to provide his educational provision for one academic year. The Council did not provide an appropriate remedy for the year of education and special educational provision Y did not receive. The Council will pay Ms X £2,450 to recognise the injustice caused to Y.