LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a new house with a clear‑glazed landing window near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision, or significant personal injustice caused to Ms X, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint.

Summary: there was a delay making suitable arrangements for Ms M’s son, B’s education and amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. I have recommended a symbolic remedy. Since making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms M said the Council had still not issued B’s EHC Plan and he remained out of school. If it has not already done so, the Council should issue B’s EHC Plan and arrange suitable, full-time education for him – following all relevant guidance and procedures – without further delay. Ms M can make a new complaint if she remains dissatisfied with the Council’s actions since her

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Council employee’s post on social media, because it is not an action the Council is responsible for.

Summary: Mr X said the Council’s failure to conclude its investigation into unauthorised works to a listed building meant he could not sell his property. We did not find the injustice Mr X claimed arose from the Council’s delayed enforcement investigation. However, the Council agreed to prepare an investigation plan to ensure it maintained progress dealing with unauthorised works to the listed building. The Council also agreed to prepare an action programme to address its backlog of enforcement cases that had been open for at least two years.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing an amended education, health and care plan after an annual review. It also mishandled the formal complaint about this, meaning there was a significant delay in the response to that too. This caused the complainant and her son avoidable frustration, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application and an application to vary planning conditions. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly undertake a safeguarding investigation in relation to his father. The Council should have contacted Mr X when it decided the initial safeguarding concern did not meet the threshold for further investigation. This did not cause Mr X any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about his neighbour’s actions. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s responses to his homelessness application and requests for his personal information instigated by his homelessness application in 2019. We will

Summary: We found the Council was not at fault in how it reached its decision there was not statutory nuisance at premises near Mrs X’s home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in felling a tree without authorisation and charging the complainant for the work. This is because there is no indication of fault on the Council’s part.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s Code of Conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council misrepresented the position of the Parish Council as supporting a funding bid sent to the government. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant is complaining on behalf of a Parish Council and not as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint about a councillor’s conduct as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mr B complained that his mother, Mrs C, should not have been charged a top-up fee for accommodation that he says should have been funded under Section 117 aftercare. We found Dorset Council and NHS Dorset were at fault in not preparing a Section 117 or CPA care plan for Mrs C’s mental health needs when she was discharged from hospital, and in communication with Mr B about charges. We found this caused uncertainty to Mr B. We have made recommendations to the Council and NHS Dorset to remedy the failings found.

Summary: Mr B complained that his mother, Mrs C, should not have been charged a top-up fee for accommodation that he says should have been funded under Section 117 aftercare. We found Dorset Council and NHS Dorset were at fault in not preparing a Section 117 or CPA care plan for Mrs C’s mental health needs when she was discharged from hospital, and in communication with Mr B about charges. We found this caused uncertainty to Mr B. We have made recommendations to the Council and NHS Dorset to remedy the failings found.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax banding change. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault. It is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

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

Summary: Mr & Mrs B complain about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission on a site close to their home. They also complain about use of the bridleway which runs through their property. We will not investigate this complaint. Their complaint about the planning permission is late. Concerns about the extent and use of the bridleway are civil matters and it is reasonable to expect Mr & Mrs B to ask the courts to consider these issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to implement a policy warning past, current and potential customers of its high fees. This is because the Council has explained the actions it has taken to advise customers of the costs and we are satisfied this is an appropriate proportionate response. We could achieve no more.

Summary: We have not found fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs C’s mental capacity, and how the Council involved Mrs C and her son in the decisions about where she wanted to live. However, there was fault in the way the Council organised the Continuing Healthcare Checklist. We cannot say whether this caused any injustice to Mrs C and, in any event, the Council offered a further CHC Checklist which was an appropriate remedy.