LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council racially discriminated against Mrs X. We cannot determine whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010 or determine whether the Council is liable for her financial losses. These are matters for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her reports of pollution. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing her a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs Y’s complaint about its failings when dealing with her request for her son, Z, to have an Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to follow statutory timescales for issuing draft and final plans, failed to do what it agreed at mediation, and failed to issue Amendment Notices on time. There was little communication with her after mediation and it failed to follow its own complaints procedure. The faults caused lost provision as well as distress to Mrs Y. The Council agreed to send her an apology, pay £1,000 for missed provision, £500 for her dist

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports of disrepair in a private rented property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about damage caused to her car by a pothole on a road maintained by the Council. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to take the matter to the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before deciding to grant planning permission for new properties near the complainant’s home. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for not notifying Mrs X that it had confirmed Tree Preservation Orders within her property. This did not cause Mrs X an injustice as she was aware the Orders had been made and saw they had been confirmed online.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council cutting the payments she received as a shared lives carer without telling her the reasons why. This is because the faults accepted did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, we are not likely to find fault as the Council is paying in line with its scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council charging a council tax premium for second homes. This is because the law says such decisions can only be challenged by judicial review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s investigation of a noise nuisance complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not addressed his concerns about heavy goods vehicles regularly using the road he lives on. Mr X said this is causing damage to his property. There was some fault by the Council as it had not established whether additional signage was needed to enforce the site. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to consider whether the site needed additional signage and whether it needed to pass the matter to its Trading Standards team.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint about planning enforcement. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s failure to handle his Freedom of Information request within the required timescale. The office of the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider these complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care while in hospital. It is standard practice to continue to pay to keep your room in a care home available for you to return to. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept a complaint about alleged bullying of Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is also unlikely we would find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her child, Y with suitable education since November 2023. She also complained about its poor communication and delays handling her complaint. We find the Council at fault. This impacted Y’s education and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and consider allowing Y to remain at their current school for an additional year.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council misled her sister into thinking she would be moving to a care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in considering and granting permission for a planning application to develop land near his home. We have not found fault in how the Council considered the application. We have not upheld Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly enforce parking restrictions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council failing to meet statutory timeframes when finalising her child’s education, health and care plan, failing to communicate with her properly and its failure to attend mediation sessions. The Council acknowledged it was at fault and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X said there was extensive delay, which affected his development costs, in how the Council processed his planning application. We found there was fault in the Council’s pre application advice that caused Mr X frustration. The Council had already suitably put matters right by apologising to Mr X and offering to process, without payment of a fee, a new planning application for his proposed development.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the handling of her son’s education. Miss X had the right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Miss X has used that right which places most of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. There are some issues we could investigate, but it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. Also, the injustice from matters which are in our jurisdiction is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We upheld a complaint the Council delayed in completing an education, health and care assessment of Mr E’s child. We also found fault in its failure to ensure the child had access to a full-time education for two terms while it completed its assessment. These faults caused injustice as a loss of education provision and distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy Mr E’s injustice and make service improvements.