LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a parish councillor breached the parish council’s code of conduct. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement as there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and the injustice is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Ms B’s complaint about its refusal to refund money paid to enforcement agents following the revocation of previous Orders for Recovery by the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to meet all her needs for care and support. The Council’s records containing conflicting information about how it has been meeting Ms X’s needs. It has also failed to engage with other agencies which have contacted it on Ms X’s behalf. The Council needs to apologise to Ms X, make a symbolic payment, reassess her needs and update her care and support plan.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide wraparound or holiday childcare for children with special educational needs in the county. We found evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to make sure it was aware of the childcare needs of parents with children who have special educational needs. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her. It also agreed to tell Miss X about the childcare offer it can make to her this summer.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council for allegedly failing to take enforcement action in response to a breach of planning law. This is because the evidence shows the Council is monitoring the situation and is actively considering its legal powers to take enforcement action. The Council has not ruled out taking enforcement action and is waiting on future events. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve this complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We did not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about poor communication because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mrs X’s other complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s applications to divert a bridleway. Part of the complaint is late, another part has already been considered by the Planning Inspectorate and there is insufficient evidence of fault in a recent decision related to an application to modify the definitive map.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care assessment for deprivation of liberty. This is because we could not say the outcome would be different despite that delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the liability for septic tank repairs. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to apply to Court which is better placed to decide this dispute.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a permit scheme for its waste and recycling sites. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr H’s complaint about it failing to provide financial support to help him move to accommodation it found him. It failed to show it had proper processes and guidance in place when dealing with obtaining, assessing, deciding, and paying quotes. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about whether the Council misled him over its letting scheme and is responsible for damage to his property. Part of the complaint is late and if he believes the Council is liable for damage to the property, it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy by way of an insurance claim and the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a prior approval application in 2020. This complaint is late, and we have seen no evidence to suggest the complainant could not have contacted us much sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action to keep a local footpath free from obstruction. This is because Ms X has appeal rights to the Magistrates Court which we would reasonably expect her to use, so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled an alleged breach of planning control. We have found fault with the Council for how it handled the planning application that the enforcement case relates to. This caused Mrs X a loss of amenity that the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a councillor breached the coded of conduct. W

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a councillor standards complaint because the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint about councillor conduct as there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice, to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process for her child, Y, and the Council’s handling of her complaint. Part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application submitted by Ms X’s neighbour. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in parts of the Education Health and Care Plan (EHC) process followed by the Council for her son, D. She also complains about the Council’s failure to ensure that D was registered for all his GCSE examinations and received the appropriate resources and additional time. The Council has already upheld most of Mrs Y’s complaint and apologised. The Council has also agreed to implement the additional actions listed at the end of this statement to fully remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Ms C complains about the Council’s financial assessments in deciding how much she must contribute towards the cost of her care. Ms C