LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take planning enforcement action against a number of alleged breaches of planning control at a site near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the enforcement issues, and some of the works do not cause the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to act when she raised safeguarding concerns about her son being bullied at school and failed to put in place full-time education when he stopped attending school. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the safeguarding concerns. The Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan which affected Mrs B’s appeal rights about the school named and failed to put in place an added subject when Mrs B asked for it. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his planning application. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council made its decision. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered its duties as a statutory consultee. Any fault there may have been here has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to respond to her request for a change to her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X upset and frustration and meant Y missed out on special educational provision. To remedy Mrs X’s injustice, the Council will apologise. It has already paid her £300, which is an appropriate sum. If Mrs X feels the Council’s fault impacted on Y’s development and education, she can seek additional provision as part of her ongoing appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council will issue a staff reminder to prevent the

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the complainant’s granddaughter’s foster placement. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the contents of her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan because Ms X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £350. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the use of an area of open green space as a car park. This is because it is the Parish Council which owns the land and it is not the Council’s responsibility to enforce private deeds, byelaws and covenants relating to use of the land.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject his blue badge application. This is because the matters complained about could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal to consider his complaint as it found it had already been considered in a completed children’s statutory complaint process. We found the Council at fault. This is because Mr B’s new complaint relates to matters which were different, a different period of time, and if upheld, may justify further remedies.

Summary: Mrs B complains about how the Council treated her and her partner when their child was born. This was due to her previous involvement with the Council about concerns for the care of her older children. The Council would not consider her complaint about the matter. The Council was at fault for not considering Mrs B’s complaint. The Council will apologise to Mrs B and consider her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to tell the complainant about a planning application, the way it considered the planning application and a breach of the data protection regulations. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, the Council has failed to take account of professionals’ views when deciding the best care placement for Mrs Y. As a result, he says the Council’s flawed decision making has left his mother without the care she needs. We have found fault in the Council’s decision-making process, and it has agreed to make a financial payment to Mrs X and Mr Y and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the time taken to complete repair works to streetlights. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and any personal injustice suffered is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing Occupational Therapist and Speech and Language Therapist assessments of her child as part of an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since July 2023. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable education for Ms X’s child from 21 September 2023 to 4 February 2024. We did not find fault with the Council delaying in completing Occupational Therapist or Speech and Language Therapist assessments. The Council agreed to apologise to

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not deliver a suitable education to her child. We found no fault with the Council’s actions when delivering alternative provision for Miss X’s child. We found the Council at fault for miscommunication regarding Miss Y’s child’s school placement. This caused Miss X and Y avoidable distress. We have recommended an apology, symbolic payment and service improvements to remedy Miss X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council Social Workers and reasonable adjustments. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning enforcement matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for him. We cannot tell the Council it must remove specific officers from his case and the substantive issue concerns the validity of the Council’s claims that Mr X has breached planning control, which is a matter for the courts and/or the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice because he appealed to a Planning Inspector and the matter was remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure an education placement and the special education provision in her adult child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X had a right of appeal about this matter, and it is reasonable for her to have used it. Nor will we investigate how the Council secured therapy related provision, because the Council has already made a suitable offer of a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.