LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved two planning applications close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about re-surfacing works on his road. This is because the complaint is late and the Council has carried out remedial work to resolve the issue for Mr X. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking enforcement and traffic regulations. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made to the complainant by the instructor of a weight management programme. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has taken appropriate action in response to the complaint, and any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

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

Summary: On balance, the evidence shows the Council considers it should have required the submission of a noise assessment, as part of a planning application, and so this is fault. This did not, however, make any difference to the outcome of the application. There is no evidence of fault in any other aspect of the complaint, and so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about a lack of hydrotherapy for her son, Y. The Council accepted there was fault in the way it handled Y’s hydrotherapy provision and offered a remedy. We identified further injustice to Ms X and Y in the form of distress and the Council agreed to take further action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wasted public money for political reasons. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed assessing her mother, Mrs Y’s care needs and setting up direct payments. The Council was at fault. It delayed assessing Mrs Y’s care needs and failed to properly consider her night time support needs. As a result, Mrs Y has had to fund her own care for longer than necessary and the personal budget may not be sufficient to meet her needs. The Council has agreed to review Mrs Y’s care needs and personal budget and backdate this as necessary. It has also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble ca

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about entitlement to council tax reduction because he appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s outbuilding. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms X.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about how the coroner’s office handled the inquest into the death of her late sister. We cannot investigate some of the matters complained about because they are outside of our jurisdiction. However, we found the coroner’s office failed to make an audible recording of the hearing, but this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs Y. We also found the coroner’s office did not disclose all relevant documents to Mrs Y and the Council failed to respond to Mrs Y’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to notify Mr X’s neighbour that their property was a Grade 2 Listed Building. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to the complainant’s request to change the name/address of her property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Dr X complains the Council has failed to provide her daughter with the support she has been assessed as needing. The Council has failed to meet all her daughter’s needs, causing avoidable distress. The Council needs to apologise, involve Dr X in assessing her daughter’s needs and pay financial redress.

Summary: Ms E complained the Council failed to follow child protection procedures when it was involved with her family. We find the Council was at fault for allowing Ms E’s son to visit his grandmother without her knowledge or consent. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms E to reflect her injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council officer’s report which was submitted to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Mr X says the Council has failed to answer his Freedom of Information request properly. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the most appropriate authority for his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to demolish and replace a house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend direct payments. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council tarmacking over a utility company stop tap in the pavement. This is a civil matter It is reasonable for Miss X to seek a legal remedy against either the Council or the water utility company.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards of care at a residential home. Our involvement could not provide a meaningful remedy and the Information Commissioner is best placed to help Mrs X access records about Mr X’s respite stay.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council refused her housing application based on incorrect information and delayed awarding her the right housing priority. Miss C says she experienced distress and injury because she had to live in an unsuitable property. We found fault with the Council because it delayed referring Miss C to its Housing Options Team to make a homelessness application. The Council will make a financial payment to Miss C to remedy the injustice caused by its fault.

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

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide him with a Blue Badge. He says the Council did not properly consider his application and this caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience. We found fault regarding the Council’s communications with Mr X. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr X’s appeal and provide an apology.