LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written by the Council and passed to Ofsted. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different or more worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that a Council officer made inappropriate comments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to investigate while court proceedings are ongoing.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly pursued them for a council tax debt and delayed in processing an application for a discretionary payment. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in processing Mrs X’s application and failing to respond to their requests for updates. This caused Mr and Mrs X frustration, uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct by the Council with respect to historical claims to ownership of the complainant’s land. This is because the issues concern matters and events which occurred between 1960 and 2000. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical matters. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should exercise our discretion in this respect. In any event, the complainant could reasonably take court action over the issues raised.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ask permission to erect scaffolding on Mrs X’s home and the poor timing of a hand delivered letter. The Council has acknowledged it should have discussed the matter with her direct and has apologised for the insensitivity of hand delivering a letter on new year’s eve. It has also confirmed it has taken steps to avoid repetition of such events. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s failure to take effective enforcement action to prevent a breach of planning control on neighbouring land. We found the Council was at fault because it took too long to provide her with feedback and respond to her complaint, causing her frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and remind staff of the need to comply with relevant timescales. We did not find fault with the Council’s enforcement decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about land ownership. This is because the complaint is made too late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a carer employed by the Care Provider. We could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks from complaining.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not properly delivered the provision in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan since 2021. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to progress a complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by progressing the complaint to stage two and completing its investigation without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble he has been to.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation of and decision on her noise complaint, and the attitudes and responses of officers. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and decision on the noise issue to warrant an investigation. We could not achieve a different outcome in the complaint about the Council’s staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly refused to award a 12 week property disregard when her mother moved into a care home and failed to properly assess her mother’s needs properly. There is no fault in the Council’s care assessment. The Council failed to follow statutory guidance when refusing to award a 12 week property disregard and failed to follow its own policy. That caused Mrs B distress. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of the 12-week property disregard in Mrs Y’s case. There is insufficient evidence of Mrs Y or her family having experienced a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make the necessary funding available to the complainant’s son’s school to enable it to deliver the provision to which he is entitled. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during the assessment for NHS funding for adult care. The Council’s actions do not cause the claimed injustice of a failure to award Continuing Healthcare funding. That is an NHS decision, and is not an outcome the Council nor the Ombudsman can achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make educational provision for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council awarded Miss X’s priority band for social housing because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Z’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and the special educational provision in their Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: consult with school A or other schools before issuing the final EHC Plan in 2023; properly consider Miss Y’s request for free school transport; and deliver the SEN provision in Z’s EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Miss Y, making payments to reflect the impact on Z of the missed SEN provision and

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council preventing contact between children and their birth family because only a court can decide disputed matters of contact and residence. We have no legal power to say what contact should be, or whether the children should be returned to their birth family.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure suitable education provision for her son from late 2022 to mid-2024. She said the Council had not addressed her concerns, or adapted the provision to meet her son's needs. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its section 19 duty between October 2022 and January 2023. However, on a balance of probabilities, we find this did not cause an injustice. Other parts of Miss X’s complaint, about later time periods, concern matters which are part of, connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to the SEND Trib

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter, Y, between November 2023 and July 2024 when she was unable to attend school due to anxiety. The Council was at fault. It will apologise to Ms X and pay her £2,400 to recognise the period of suitable alternative provision Y missed, and the distress this caused Ms X.