LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for development of her neighbour’s property in 2020/21. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor communication relating to funding his mother’s care. The Council has upheld the complaint and apologised. It will make a payment to Mr X to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of the Council’s children’s services report because he has a right to take the matter complained about to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council reversing its decision to fund the complainant’s late mother’s care costs. This is because the Council made clear its decision was provisional pending further assessment and there is insufficient evidence that is further assessment was subject to fault.

Summary: Miss B says the Council wrongly took recovery action for business rates arrears when it had written to her at the wrong address, that it failed to respond to her communications, failed to follow the complaints procedure and delayed repaying money it owed her. There is no fault in how the Council pursued recovery action or in how it dealt with the complaint. The Council failed to respond to one email and delayed repaying some money. An apology, alongside the action the Council has already taken, is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to meet its obligations in relation to tenants it referred to the complainant as a private a landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council tax premium charge on an empty property. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council requiring him to pay full council tax for services he does not benefit from. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the financial assessment the Council completed for her husband and its decision that there has been a deprivation of assets. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to act on the complainant giving it notice that she wished to move from her supported living accommodation. This is because the Council has accepted it was at fault and provided a suitable remedy to the complainant which addresses the injustice caused. Further investigation would therefore unlikely lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless and housing register applications. We found the Council at fault for failing to issue a written decision notice with her review rights, to provide some advice in a timely manner, and causing confusion. It also caused a service failure due to delays in processing her housing register application, but this did not cause her a significant injustice. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Ms C experienced as a result.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with appropriate education and provision in line with Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault which caused Miss X and Y frustration and distress and meant Y missed out on some education provision. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not issue an amended EHC Plan for Y within statutory timescales. This caused avoidable frustration, distress, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights. The Council did not secure educational provision in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan for half a term. This caused Y a loss of educational provision to which he had a legal entitlement. The Council will apologise, make payments of £150 to Ms X and £1000 to Y and issue Y’s amended Education Health and Care Plan without further delay.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt her child, Z’s special educational needs support and alternative provision. We have found finding fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: provide Z with a suitable education; and complete the EHC Plan review process within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress caused and the impact on Z of the missed education.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to take further action to ensure hedges are cut back from the public highway. This is because the Council has taken such action as it considers necessary and there is not enough evidence of fault in its approach. It is also unlikely we could say its actions caused Mr X significant injustice or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice and rules around loading bays as Mr X had the right to appeal the notice to, and raise these issues with, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the height of a hedge adjacent to Mr X’s property. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and because an investigation would achieve no useful outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable alternative education while they were absent from school due to health issues. The Council was not at fault. It considered all the information and decided Z could still access an education at school. There was no fault in the way it reached this decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his claim for compensation following damage to his vehicle which occurred when he hit a pothole in the road. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a claim against the Council at court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s financial assessment was wrong. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

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

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s decision not to assess her daughter for an Education, Health and Care Plan and a statutory Care Needs Assessment. We found the Council was at fault. This caused Mrs C unnecessary distress and meant that S missed two terms of education. The Council agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice its actions caused Mrs C and S.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about parking issues. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council suspended his housing application without considering all the information. He said this caused him to miss out on a suitable property. We found fault with the Council for reaching a decision contrary to its policy. We consider this to have caused Mr X uncertainty and distress but do not consider he missed out on a suitable property.