LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make a compulsory purchase order. 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.

Summary: We found fault with the Council for its failure to secure alternative provision for the complainant’s (Miss X) son (Y) for a few weeks after his permanent exclusion. This caused him and Miss X injustice. We also found fault with the Council’s delay in amending Y’s Education Health and Care Plan before his move to a secondary placement but the Council’s fault did not cause significant injustice to Y and Miss X. We did not find fault with the Council’s delay in reviewing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and the way it carried out the Personal Budget process for Y. The Council agreed t

Summary: Ms C complains about the withdrawal of services and standard of care provided to her mother, Ms D. The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess Ms D’s needs. The Council commissioned Care Provider failed to properly communicate with the family and get advice about how to support Ms D. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and Ms D for the faults identified and pay Ms D £300 and Ms C £250 in acknowledgement of the injustice caused by these faults. This is in addition to procedural and training steps it has already agreed to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to communication sent to Ms X as a member of a local community group. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s application for school transport assistance. This is because it is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on the substantive matter, which is the complainant’s daughter’s eligibility for school transport assistance.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the charge for a replacement green waste bin. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s adult safeguarding enquiry. Mrs C can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office about her data protection complaints, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the remainder of her complaint to justify further investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not dealing with Ms B’s complaint about her special guardianship allowance under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This meant that Ms B did not have access to an independent investigation of her complaint. The Council has now agreed to consider the complaint under the correct procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council mishandling a direct debit instruction to pay for Mr X’s sister’s care. This is because the Council has made a suitable offer to remedy the injustice caused by the delays and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms C complained about the care her father received from a homecare agency commissioned by the Council. We found there was fault with regards to some aspects of the care Mr F received, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure provision in his daughter Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was delivered. The Council was at fault as it failed to ensure Y received the speech and language therapy set out in her Plan. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £300 to acknowledge the loss of provision to Y in line with the Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter’s education. The Council did not consider whether her daughter needed alternative education provision properly. Y lost some educational opportunity. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £4,500.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in removing a redundant bus lane sign. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council has dealt with her child’s

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council says the complainant must pay full council tax even though he gets pension credit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take enforcement action against work at a house close to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with the matters raised.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council wrongly approved his neighbour planning application and failed to take appropriate enforcement action. He also said a Planning Committee member was biased towards the applicant. We found the Council failed to give proper reasons for the planning decision it made. It also caused delays in its enforcement investigation. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr C for the injustice it caused him. It has already taken action to prevent similar failings in the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to follow the correct Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process. Mrs X is not considered a suitable representative to complain on behalf of her brother and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has communicated with her to justify investigating.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s delay in addressing a neighbour’s planning breach. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and while there has been some delay, neither it nor the injustice caused to Ms X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. Planning permission has not yet been granted therefore

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it identified breaches of pre-commencement planning conditions in February 2021 but has supplied no evidence that it has taken any action since then. The Council’s proposal to review progress and in addition, to tell Mr X of the result, remedies the injustice. Mr X complains about damage to his property by the developer because of the delay, but damage to property is a private matter between him and the developer.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly issuing a Notice to Owner to the car rental company resulting in an administration fee. This is because there is not enough justification for us to call on the Council to provide the remedy Mr X is seeking. The Council have corrected the fault. It is not unreasonable to expect Mr X to contact the rental company with whom he had the agreement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not receiving a COVID-19-related business grant. Since Mr X’s complaint to us, the Council has paid him a grant. We cannot achieve significantly more than that.