LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council’s failure to consider relevant information in deciding Ms X did not qualify to join the housing register was fault. The Council was also at fault for failing to complete a medical needs assessment in line with its allocations policy. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £300, reassess Ms X’s application, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to provide her daughter (Child A), who has special educational needs, a suitable full-time education when she was out of school. We found evidence that supports that Child A was unable to attend school due to her complex needs, and the Council failed to exercise its legal duty to provide alternative education provision. This caused harm to Child A’s educational development and wellbeing and serious distress and uncertainty to Mrs K. Both Child A and Mrs K have suffered an injustice because of the fault identified and the Council has agreed to our rec

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision that her daughter Y did not need a wet room. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a breach of planning control is now immune from enforcement action. 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 in the way the Council has reached its decision on the case.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services actions. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault on the decision to suspend the statutory complaints’ procedure. We are unlikely to achieve more on her child protection conference complaint. We cannot investigate those parts of her complaint which are covered by Court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what information the Council holds and provides about enforcement cases relating to advertising displays. This is because her complaint relates to an old case she was connected with and there is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council is conducting a Trading Standards investigation. It does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. The Council’s actions have not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained that he was bullied and abused by staff providing the Council’s Rough Sleeper Programme and that accommodation the Council provided was unsuitable. We found there was a failure to formally respond to complaints in 2019. However, there was no evidence Mr X was treated improperly.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services actions in 2020. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement action taken by the Council against advertisement displays erected by the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and we have no power to investigate what happened at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a charge received from the Council for the suspension of a parking bay. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council refused to issue a refund after it cancelled the registrar service it was due to provide for his wedding. At this stage, the Ombudsman considers there was fault causing injustice because the Council failed to properly consider Mr B’s refund request. The Council should re-consider its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a road closure. This is because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him and consider his amenity before approving a planning application, and that the new business causes excessive noise disturbance which disrupts his family life and the enjoyment of his home. The Council is at fault because it failed to properly consider Mr X’s amenity during the planning process. The Council has agreed to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the noise disturbance and dependent on the results, it will take appropriate action to mitigate or reduce noise disturbance. The Council will also pay Mr X £250 as a symbolic gesture