LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs E complained the Council failed to exercise discretion and provide home to school transport for her daughter and other pupils who do not qualify under its policy. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the decision to remove a child from the complainant’s care and place him in foster care. This is because the decisions were made in Court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s planning application. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about missed recycling collections between May and October 2021 and a failure to respond to her complaints. This caused avoidable frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and taken action to minimise the chance of recurrence. It has also agreed to pay Mrs X £150.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council sent council tax demands to the wrong address, which resulted in bailiffs contacting her and charging fees. The Council was at fault for failing to update Mrs X’s address. This caused her distress and meant she paid enforcement fees she should not have. The Council has already refunded the fees, apologised, and made suitable service improvements. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £200 to recognise the distress she experienced.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the withdrawal of a school place. This is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school. We have no powers to investigate when this is the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the process of adopting the Council’s Core Strategy and the Site Allocations Plan. We have not investigated this aspect of the complaint because the matters in question took place too long ago. Mrs B also complained about the way the Council handled a planning application for housing development on public open space next to her property and the appropriation of the land. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s loft extension. The Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. Without fault, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a fixed penalty notice. The courts are better placed to consider this complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Mr X complains that the Council has not provided him with a detailed breakdown of his council tax bill. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and the Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter which has been appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about its response to an allegation made about an incident in a school. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his late uncle, Mr D, by a Home which was partly funded by the Council via an agreement and the NHS. He said the Home and the Council failed to safeguard his uncle from abuse and ensure he received good care between January to December 2019. He also complained about the effectiveness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation. Mr B claimed Mr D suffered unnecessarily and the events led to Mr B experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We found failings in the care provided to Mr D and he was not always safeguarded

Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his late uncle, Mr D, by a Home which was partly funded by the Council via an agreement and the NHS. He said the Home and the Council failed to safeguard his uncle from abuse and ensure he received good care between January to December 2019. He also complained about the effectiveness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation. Mr B claimed Mr D suffered unnecessarily and the events led to Mr B experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We found failings in the care provided to Mr D and he was not always safeguarded

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her with suitable care. The Council was at fault for failing to reassess Ms X’s needs or review her care and support plan and for failing to take suitable action to identify a care provider. This meant Ms X has been without a suitable care package since August 2021, which caused her distress. The Council has agreed to carry out a new needs assessment, pay her £300 and remind its staff of the proper processes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a condition attached to planning permission granted in 2018. Part of the complaint is late. There is nothing to suggest other fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged unlawful obstructions to a footpath as Mr X is not caused significant personal injustice from it.

Mr and Ms X complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.

Summary: We do not find fault in how the Council considered and approved a planning application for major development close to Ms Y’s house. The Council undertook public consultation in line with the statutory requirements and the officer report contained sufficient analysis of the impact to Ms Y and others.