LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for information and that inaccurate information about the complainant was recorded by the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award free school transport for the complainant’s son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Y received suitable fulltime education, either by supplementing provision when Y was put on an extended part-time timetable by the school, or when Y became unable to attend school due to medical needs. This was fault and caused loss of education, distress, created additional caring responsibilities and caused unnecessary time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic financial payment, and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reinstate a wooden post next to a footpath. This is because the matter does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the issue of a penalty charge notice (PCN) because it would reasonable for Mr X to appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the officers who issued the PCN because it did not cause Mr X significant injustice separate from the impact of the PCN itself. Mr X believes the Council should take disciplinary action against the officers but this is a personnel matter and it is not therefore subject to investigation.

Summary: We found no fault by a Council and Trust in terms of their decision to change Miss Y’s support arrangements. However, we did find fault with how they communicated those changes to Miss Y and her mother, Mrs X. The Council and Trust will apologise for this and make changes to prevent similar problems occurring in future. They will also make a symbolic payment to Miss Y and Mrs X to recognise the distress this caused them.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow its scheme of delegation when determining a planning application. We have found fault with the Council for failing to consult the relevant ward member. This caused Mr X frustration, but we do not consider that the outcome of the application would have been any different but for the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prevent unlawful parking on an area of land it owns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We do not consider the Council’s actions have caused the complainant a significant personal injustice. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mrs E complains her son’s school was following an out-of-date Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold her complaint due to fault by the Council in its actions around this. Mrs E also complains about the school’s actions around a teacher’s use of language, inappropriate emails and suspensions of children with special educational needs. Our decision is these are internal management issues within the school, and so not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs Y complains there were failings in the way the Council provided her grandchild Z with alternative educational provision while carrying out an education health and care needs assessment and Z could not attend school causing distress and loss of educational provision. We found fault as the Council delayed the education health and care needs assessment and issuing a final education health and care plan. The Council has accepted it was at fault and apologised which is suitable action for it to take. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered whether to

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has not enforced licence conditions at a park home site. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about quality of care and charges for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to the Council and then the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about child protection action taken by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request for information. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the matter and we could not achieve anything of value.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determining an application for a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to refuse the application. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the decision to the magistrates court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in adult social care support and funding during Mr C’s lifetime. The complainant has known about the issues for more than twelve months, and there is no good reason he could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: There was fault as the Council did not invite Ms B to its Care Act assessment of her relative, Mr C. The Council continued to pay Mr C’s care home fees for several months, even though Mr C was a self-funder. This meant that Ms B then received a large invoice which had to be paid immediately. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a small payment to Ms B to reflect the distress caused by the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when it deregistered Mr X as a foster carer. Parts of Mr X’s complaint are late and there is another body better suited to consider the other parts of his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the terms of a child in need plan. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that an officer made inappropriate comments and laughed at the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about alleged negligence, and trespass and damage to his land by a Council contractor carrying out licenced works to a public highway. The courts are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a report that health and safety procedures were not being followed at a workplace. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered the complainant’s planning application. We consider it reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if she believes the decision to refuse her planning application is wrong.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker’s evidence to the court during court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.