LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters concerning a development near her home. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint about liability for council tax and data access requests. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to vetting sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision to require sponsors to undergo Standard, rather than Basic Disclosure and Baring Service checks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council is considering a planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the planning application has not yet been determined and so the injustice caused to him is speculative and premature.

Summary: Mr X and his parents, Mr and Mrs Y complained about the Council’s failure to ensure adaptations to their property, funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant, were carried out to an acceptable standard and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly record variations to the Schedule of Works. The Council has agreed to apologise for the frustration caused to the complainants. We have not identified any other areas of fault. The Ombudsman is unable to interfere with the Council’s professional assessment that the overall standard of the adaptation was

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in sending an Advice and Guidance letter to Ms X about excessive feeding of wild birds. This is because there is no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to continue to treat Mr X as a vexatious complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit overpayments and the Council’s decision not to award compensation. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal and could have appealed about another overpayment. In addition, part of the complaint is late.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a development next to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reached its view about where Mr X’s children should live. This is because a court will decide the issue of residence. The matter being complained of is not separable from the court proceedings.

Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a neighbour who has erected gazebos in the back garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is to be remedied by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to its decision to treat Mr X as a vexatious complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint concerning the Council’s involvement in a report considered in the Family Court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the matters decided in court.

Summary: Mrs R has complained to the County Council in relation to a breach of planning conditions. Further, Mrs R is not satisfied with the way the original planning application was determined by the County Council. However, we consider Mrs R is complaining on behalf of her Parish Council and its elected Councillors. We have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances. Mrs R can complain to the County Council in her own right and with reference to any injustice she has suffered. However, we do not consider that Mrs R has done this and the complaint to the Ombudsman is therefore prem

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of the complainant’s housing benefit. Ms G has a right to appeal against this decision at the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to regularly review her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), resulting in loss of support. We find the Council failed to ensure Y’s EHCP was reviewed when it should have been. We recommend the Council apologise, make payment for time, trouble, and uncertainty, and remedy any similar fault affecting others.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns about noise from a neighbouring property. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: Ms X complains about the manner in which a Council officer spoke to her. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Miss X’s late father when he was in care. This is because the Council has already provided a remedy for the injustice caused to the family which goes beyond what we would usually recommend. Therefore there is nothing further we can achieve from an investigation of this complaint.

Summary: A Care Home Association complained about the way the Council and the CCG dealt with its complaint made on behalf of its members. We did not found fault in the way the Council and the CCG considered the complaint from the Association.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a sufficiently independent and robust investigation into his children’s statutory complaint. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate Mr X’s concerns about some of the care homes he lived in. This caused avoidable Mr X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to provide care to Mr X nor for its decision to cancel his care package.