LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bin collections and how officers responded to his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures by the Council in issuing Education Health and Care Plans for Mrs X’s children and failing to offer alternative educational provision for them. Some of the matters complained of are not separable from those where Mrs X used her right to appeal to the Special Educational Need and Disability Tribunal, and others are late. Investigation of the remaining matters would not be likely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome as we would be unlikely to recommend a significantly greater remedy than that already offered by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a storytelling event due to be held at the Council’s library. This is because the matter has not caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance from his neighbour. Mr Y says this caused stress and distress, and affected his ability to sleep and work. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision that there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. However, we find the Council at fault in how it handled Mr Y’s requests for reasonable adjustments. This caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make him a payment as well as several service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided for her son’s special educational needs. There was no fault in how the Council arranged the provision in Y’s Education Health and Care plan following a SEND Tribunal hearing in March 2021.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions team’s actions. We cannot investigate a school’s actions and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children protection actions from late 2020 and its handling of his complaints. There is no fault in the Council investigating the child protection referral or holding child protection case conferences. The Council has remedied or is acting to remedy Mr X’s injustice arising from the complaint handling and social worker actions. If Mr X wishes to pursue other claims it is reasonable for him to use his legal remedies.

Summary: Ms X complained about delays in naming a suitable school for her grandson, F, when the Council accepted a transfer of his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from a different council. The Council failed to name an appropriate placement for F between February and April 2021 after it accepted the transfer of his EHC Plan. This meant F was without any education for five weeks. The Council agreed to pay Ms X a total of £600 to recognise F’s lost education during that period and the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a development next to Dr X’s property. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has reached decisions about planning matters. The Council has also apologised for delays in dealing with Dr X’s complaints about planning enforcement and this is a suitable remedy. Dr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions in relation to building regulation compliance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to collect Mr X’s garden waste. The Council has done enough to put right the injustice its fault caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children services and social workers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection involvement with her family following her son’s death in 2016. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not take back a penalty charge notice from its enforcement agents as the complainant has the right to ask the courts to consider her case.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mrs Y has appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact restrictions placed on the complainant by the Council. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Summary: Mrs Y’s son, Z, is a Looked after Child and accommodated by the Council under a care order. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to keep her informed about her son, Z’s progress at school, provide a clear contact schedule and explain what happened to some of Z’s belongings that had gone missing. We find the Council at fault and it delayed in sending a complaint response. We find this caused Mrs Y distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Mrs Y, make her a payment and make several service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with his refuse and recycling concerns. The Council was at fault for repeatedly failing to collect Mr X’s household waste on the scheduled collection days. The Council was also at fault for its poor communication with Mr X and its failure to follow its complaints procedure. This caused Mr X distress, inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s children’s social care assessment of his family. He said it included incorrect information and was discriminatory. The Council has already accepted the assessment inappropriately referenced religious texts and made assumptions about his faith. That was fault. That caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has made appropriate recommendations for social workers to ensure assessments are evidence based to prevent recurrence of this fault. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter when she was unable to attend school due to ill health. She says the remedy offered is inadequate. She also states she was given inadequate information on the implications of home educating or the available alternatives. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mrs X’s daughter. It has agreed an enhanced financial remedy and a service improvement.