LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of reported breaches of planning control at a nearby listed building. I have stopped investigating this complaint and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has not suffered a personal injustice through the alleged fault and there is insufficient public interest in pursuing the matter further.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to seek a care order for the complainants son, and about how the Council has dealt with contact arrangements and a residential placement for his son. This is because the matters raised are subject to court proceedings, which places them outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains the consultation for the Local Plan Review was held online. He feels this discriminates against people who do not have online access. He would like to ensure that consultations are fully inclusive. We will not investigate further, as we are unlikely to find fault, provide the outcome Mr X would like or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to fully consider his circumstances when he claimed a Discretionary Housing Payment. There was fault in the Council’s communications and in its consideration of his backdate request. We recommended a remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because he has already appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an enforcement investigation into a structure erected by the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has already appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application including not properly completing the validation process. Mr C says this has led to concern about the treatment of future applications and unnecessary legal costs and time and trouble. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y, her child, about the way the Council has dealt with her Education, Health and Care plan and educational provision since November 2020. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Miss Y’s amended Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review in November 2020. This has caused Ms X distress, uncertainty and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to the recommendations set out in this decision to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and Miss Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a new development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the impact of the development on Mr X’s home. Mr X has also not been caused an injustice as a result of the number of units planned.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the assessment of child A’s education and health care needs and ‘child A’ more recently being out of school. It is not currently possible to assess the injustice. Mr X can return to this office when there is a decision on his appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal or following the Council’s assessment of ‘child A’ being out of school.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council responded to her request to mitigate damage to her property and danger to her from the trees growing on her neighbour’s property. She also complains about the Council officers’ conduct during their visit to her property. We find fault in the Council’s policy, but this fault did not cause Mrs X injustice.

Summary: Mrs V complained the Council did not put enough alternative educational provision in place when her son could not attend school. After making alternative arrangements, she asked to withdraw her complaint. We agreed to discontinue our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund a civil partnership booking fee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failure to provide privacy in leisure centre changing rooms. This is because Mr X has not suffered a significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigating.

Summary: Miss M complains the Council opened up a new child protection assessment based on a malicious referral with no new evidence. She also complains about several aspects of the assessment and its outcomes. We do not uphold the complaint. The referral mentioned an escalation of behaviours, so the Council had reason to carry out an investigation. And we cannot question the merits of the outcomes of its investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained, through her representative Mr Y the Council discounted her views and failed to adequately safeguard her when she made disclosures about her mother and raised concerns about her biological father. The Council was at fault for not investigating Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This was a missed opportunity for Miss X to have her complaint investigated with independent oversight. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for this failure and investigate her complaint at stage two of the procedure.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s management of the building where she owns a leasehold flat. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of housing let on a long lease by a Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Care Home delayed in responding to call-bells. That is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled the complainant’s planning application. This is because it would be reasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Act assessment. This is because the Council’s response to Ms X already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cutting of trees and bushes directly behind the boundary wall to the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about what the Council may have not told Mr X when a person and her child moved into his home in 2016. Mr X was able to complain about it in 2016 and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint now.

Ms X complains about planning permission granted for a development near her. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault causing injustice to her in the way the Council has considered enforcement matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to consider Mrs X’s Asperger’s diagnosis in its communication with her. That is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to raise these concerns in the family court.

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