LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the home to school transport provided to the complainant’s son. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has made changes to the transport and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision and the Council’s actions in assessing Mrs X’s child’s special educational needs. The matters complained of are not separable from the question of the most suitable educational provision for the child, where Mrs X has had rights of appeal to Tribunals that it would have been reasonable to use. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice in the remaining matters to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not fully consider concerns raised about alleged planning breaches regarding a Grade 2 listed building near his property. He says the Council failed to take sufficient enforcement action and delayed acting on his concerns. He says the Council’s actions allowed a harmful impact on his family’s amenity. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing information and advising his ex-partner to breach a court order. We cannot investigate the second matter as it is not separable from the conduct of court proceedings. We will not investigate the first matter as, even if it does not concern court proceedings, Mr X has a right it would be reasonable to use to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed to consider the alleged data breach.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of two social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either formed part of court proceedings or could reasonably have done so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not renewed road markings at a traffic roundabout. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council did not take sufficient action to ensure her landlord carried out repairs to her property to resolve damp issues. We found no fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide a report. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner who is better placed to investigate information rights matters.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to support her daughter’s special educational needs and its response to difficulties in her educational settings. We have found the Council to be at fault. There was delay in the process, poor communication and lack of oversight when problems arose at one setting. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its procedures.

Summary: We do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to address her safeguarding concerns about a vulnerable neighbour (Ms Y) and properly address her complaint. The Council took proportionate action and responded appropriately to Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to the problems of daily noise and smells he has reported coming from a neighbouring property. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about a lack of action by the Council in response to her complaints of anti-social behaviour. While the Council did not follow the correct procedures, it did take action but has not gathered sufficient evidence to enable it to take action against any perpetrators. There is also fault in how it responded to a community trigger request. A suitable remedy has been agreed.

Summary: Mr X complains about the handling of his objections made to the Council’s Bereavement Services about a cremation. He says he objected to the cremation of a deceased family member based on his beliefs and cultural reasons. We have decided to uphold Mr X’s complaint because there is evidence of fault by the Council. We find this meant Mr X missed out on the opportunity to have his objections considered and escalated in a way that was in line with the Council’s guidance to staff. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him a payment and make several se

Summary: We will not investigate Mr G’s complaint about the Council’s interactions with him. This is because

Summary: We have upheld this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to use the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints to address the complainant’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing a Traffic Regulation Order for work related to a housing development planning condition. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice to Mrs X which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr L complains the Council has failed to investigate and take formal safeguarding action in relation to his daughter (Child A) who he considers to be at risk of harm. He also says alleges the Council has failed to communicate with him responsibly and that the conduct of individual social workers has been inappropriate. We found the Council fully considered Mr L’s concerns relating to the welfare of Child A. There was however some fault by the Council in the way it communicated the outcome of its assessment to Mr L. That said, the Council remedied any injustice to by promptly sending h

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to follow its wildlife and natural habitat policies in relation to a set of planning applications and permissions granted for housing development in her locale. We do not propose to investigate the complaint because Ms X has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint, about the Council’s private hire driver licensing process during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the Council has already addressed the main issues and further investigation will not achieve anything significant.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council will not take planning enforcement action against a neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a care provider in relation to a fall in which the complainant’s mother sustained an injury to her head. This is because there is nothing that investigation by the Ombudsman could add to those carried out by the Care Provider and by Council B’s safeguarding procedures.

Summary: The complainants say the Council failed to act when a developer for three different sites built up the site levels which created additional flooding. Part of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There is no fault by the Council in the remainder of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered several planning applications for sites near each other. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered two of the applications. The remaining applications have not received planning permission therefore the claimed injustice is speculative.

Summary: Mrs M complained to us that the Council failed to carry out a care assessment of her daughter, as well as a carer assessment, since June 2020. Mrs M said this resulted in them not receiving the support they both needed. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault for its delay in carrying out these assessments. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs M £2,700 and her daughter £1,800, and put actions in place to avoid a possible reoccurrence.