LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change the social worker assigned to the complainant’s family. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an independent review panel that considered a school’s decision to exclude Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant further investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in responding to a high hedges complaint under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about its children’s service. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure her child, C, received the short breaks provision in their Education, Health and Care plan and wrongly refused her request for direct payments to arrange this herself. She also said the Council failed to assess her needs as a parent carer. There was fault by the Council which meant C missed short breaks provision, Mrs X did not receive a parent carer’s assessment and was caused avoidable distress, time, and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, offer Mrs X a parent carer’s assessment, write to other families who m

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about repair work the Council carried out to the pavement at the back of Ms X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to cancel a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has now cancelled the notice and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Ms X.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to ensure her son was receiving the provision named in his Education, Health, and Care Plan causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X’s concerns about the provision being made. We found fault as the Council delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaints about the matter. The Council accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Ms X and offered payment in recognition of the delay and her time and trouble in pursing her complaints. We consider it a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed ou

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his mother’s placement in a care home since June 2020. It is too late to investigate much of Mr X’s complaint. Recent events do not support the claim of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed the education provision of a child. This is because the complainant appealed the Council’s decision to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review or properly communicate with her about her direct payments and support needs. Ms X says this has caused her anxiety, confusion and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. The Council was at fault for not reviewing or communicating clearly or in a timely manner with Ms X about her direct payments. However, we do not find fault with the Council in how it communicated with Ms X about her role as an employer. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the preparation and content of a report which formed part of Court proceedings. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome for complaint procedure failings than the Council has offered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider an appeal for a child’s school place. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with how the panel reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has refused to remove or prune a tree which is harming the amenity of her home. Investigation is not likely to lead to the outcome Ms X wants. It is reasonable for Ms X to use her legal rights and remedies.

Summary: Following an independent investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about children’s social care at the Council, the Council was not at fault for what it did to remedy her injustice. It completed most of the recommended actions and offered her a suitable financial remedy. It was not at fault for not completing the remaining recommended actions, as Mrs B herself wanted to wait until she had approached the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information disclosed in the course of legal proceedings. This is because the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering evidence provided to a court.

Summary: The complaint is on behalf of a leaseholders association about a development next to the site the association represents. The complaint concerns the Council’s approval of a site compound and temporary traffic regulation orders. The complainant says the compound has an impact on some of the properties, has created an unsafe environment which has increased crime and that residents with limited mobility have difficulty in reaching their homes. There was fault by the Council that caused some injustice to Mr B for which it should apologise.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly investigate or keep him updated, and discriminated against him, when he reported child protection concerns about his child. There was fault in how the Council made its enquiries, communicated with Mr X, and handled his complaint about this. This resulted in avoidable distress and time and trouble for Mr X for which the Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review its assessment, and place a note on its file(s). It also agreed to review relevant procedures and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complained about Council delays carrying out a search linked to the sale of his home. He also said the Council made it difficult for him to complain, did not provide evidence to support its decision, and pursued a council tax debt through the court after saying it would not. The Council was not at fault for delays in the sale process, or for seeking recovery of unpaid council tax. The Council was at fault for delays in the complaint process but has already apologised for this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because the courts and insurers involved are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed progressing a complaint to stage three of the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because the Council has now arranged for the complaint to be considered by a panel and has offered the complainant a suitable payment to remedy the injustice its delay has caused him. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of Mr X’s complaint. Part of Mr X’s complaint has been considered by the Planning Inspectorate, and the other part is a legal matter for the Courts. The law says we should not investigate these matters.

Summary: Mr B complains his son, Y, did not receive 1:1 support as required by his Education Health and Care Plan for over a month. He says this caused distress and negatively impacted on Y’s education. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault for missed provision. We find fault for the delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint, but this did not cause significant injustice.