LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of past planning and licencing matters at business premises close to Ms X’s home. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because any problems which may arise in the future when the currently empty premises become occupied can be the subject of a new complaint.

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

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with adult social care for her and her son Mr Y. The Council is at fault because it has been unable to provide the care Mr Y needs. Mrs X and Mr Y suffered missed care provision and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mrs X and Mr Y £1,000 each.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about liability for business rates which the Council has billed him for. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complained about the conduct of the Council during an initial child protection investigation and conference. He also complained the Council allowed a vulnerable person to live at his property for three months. There is no evidence the Council acted with fault which caused Mr B injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in assessing Miss Y’s needs to facilitate a planned move of accommodation. The Council has accepted fault and proposed a personal remedy and service improvements via its internal complaint process, and investigation by us would not achieve a more meaningful outcome.

Summary: The Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments to enable Mr Y to pursue a homeless application was fault. The Council was also at fault for relying on a method of communication it knew Mr Y could not access and for wrongly refusing to accept a late review request. The Council should apologise, carry out the review, and make payments to Mr X and Mr Y.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in issuing an Education, Health, and Care Plan, for Mrs X’s son. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because she was left with avoidable distress and inconvenience in following up as to what the Council were doing, as well has having a delayed right of appeal. It also has left Mrs X with uncertainty about what special education provision her son may also have missed out on because of delays. The Council have agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice in line with my recommendation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the education, health and care plan process. She said the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative provision; delayed naming a suitable school for her son and said the communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mrs X and her son missed out on education. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide a copy of meeting notes, about the Council’s handling of his subject access request, and about untrue statements made about him during the meeting. This is because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to his request for information regarding what the Council’s process is for handling and closing the files of vulnerable people in care. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her mother, Mrs F. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mr F complained on behalf of his mother, that the Council failed to disregard her property in its financial assessment and has wrongly decided that she deprived herself of assets to avoid paying towards her care costs. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Child Protection assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks

Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to consider all relevant facts when Mrs X had to move out of her previous care home. The complaint is not upheld.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to issue her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. The Council was at fault because it took too long to issue the plan following an annual review. We have also found the Council at fault for not communicating with Miss X effectively. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment of £850 to acknowledge the loss of provision and the distress it caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application and refusal to provide information the complainant requested. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to refer his concerns about access to information to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling and consideration of a planning application for building works next to the complainants’ property. There is not enough evidence of any fault in the decision-making process affecting the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. And about its communications with the complainant. We do not consider that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a report of persistent racist bullying in a school. The substantive matter is one we cannot investigate because it involves the internal management of a school. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions in relation to a matter that is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not allowing contact between Mr X and his children. The matter complained of is not separable from matters in respect of which there was a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.