LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to safeguard Mrs X when she was a child. This is because parts of the complaint relate to data protection and are best placed for the information commissioner’s office to investigate. The remaining parts of the complaint relate to events that took place more than 12 months ago and are therefore outside of our jurisdiction due to the time that has elapsed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council attaching a parking ticket to Mr B’s windscreen which left a sticky residue. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house close to the complainant’s home. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an issue that occurred in 2018 regarding the complainant’s housing benefit. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Ms H complained about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her daughter (X). She said this caused her distress and a delay in X receiving the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and it communicated with Ms H poorly as no caseworker was allocated. The Council will apologise and make payment to Ms H to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and X.

Summary: Mrs F complained that the Council delayed issuing her son’s EHC plan, causing him to miss out on provision and causing her significant distress. We found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly declined their request for support with care fees, failed to properly consider their evidence and based its decision on deprivation of a property sale asset on wrong assumptions. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Ms X has used her right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of the property Mr X was placed in following a stay in hospital, or the support offered to him during his eviction. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now.

Summary: Miss F complained that the Council failed to provide her family with children’s social care support and had refused to accept her complaint about this. We found fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate and respond to the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council has now agreed to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council’s planning meeting. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and we do not consider an investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not entitled to receive council tax support to cover her full council tax liability. This is because Ms X has appeal rights to the Valuation Tribunal against the decision which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to assess his child’s special educational needs, not assessing properly, and refusing to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. These matters are not separable from those where Mr X has or had a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council Officer during Miss B’s mobility assessment. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays as its not significant enough. And we cannot investigate the consultation process because she has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action. This is because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s updates to him when dealing with his complaint about anti-social behaviour because any injustice is not significant enough.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s maintained its definitive map. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council recovering overpayments it made in housing benefit to the complainant. This is because the Council’s decision to recover the overpayments carries a right of appeal to a tribunal. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her child, Child Y, the Council wrongly refused to provide home-to-school transport to attend the only school named in Child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council said there were closer schools which Child Y could attend but had not named these in Child Y’s EHC Plan. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal panel with different panel members to consider the proper tests set out in law and statutory guidance, and if successful pay Ms X’s transport costs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to allow extended operating hours at Biggin Hill Airport. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is no realistic prospect of carrying out a sound investigation into events which occurred approximately 8 years ago.

Summary: Ms F complained about how the Council handled her son’s Education, Health, and Care plan process and her request for a change of school placement. The Council agreed it caused an 8-month delay in finalising his plan due to a human error and apologised to Ms F. This was fault. We found its apology was not enough to remedy the injustice this caused. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Ms F and review its process to ensure such unnecessary delays do not reoccur.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application and homeless situation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. The Council does not have a homeless duty to Miss X so it cannot discharge this duty.

Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her daughter, C’s, Education, Health and Care Plan assessment. She says it delayed the statutory process and took too long to consult schools to check if they could meet C’s needs. This meant that C was left with no educational and therapeutic provision for longer than necessary. Mrs X would like the Council to apologise for the delays and pay them for the distress its actions have caused. The Council was at fault for the delays in the assessment process. The Council agreed to our recommendations on how it should address the injustice its actions c