LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs A complained on behalf of Mrs X that the Council did not keep her informed of the actions it took following an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about Children’s Services. Mrs A says the Council did not provide Mrs X with an update as agreed and says the Council’s actions have caused Mrs X avoidable distress. We found fault by the Council in this matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, carry out a review of its processes and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in a court report and interfering in a court process. This is because neither matter is separable from court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about his planning application. This is because he has appealed to the Planning Inspector and taken court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that an Officer misled the Council’s Planning Committee by using a pre-application drawing of a bungalow instead of a dormer bungalow. The application was refused and therefore the complainant has not suffered any injustice as a result. Nor have I seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered multiple reports of breaches of planning control.

Summary: We stopped investigating a complaint about a failure to clear a path and prune trees because the Council took suitable action during the investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a complaint about a parish councillor. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint.

Summary: Mr N complains about the Council not providing calculations of his council tax reduction awards. He also complains about the Council’s decision on one of those awards. We uphold the complaint about the calculations. But we have not looked at the substantive issue about the decision. That is because it is a reasonable expectation for Mr N to appeal that decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council for a moving traffic contravention and subsequent action taken by bailiffs on behalf of the Council. The law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal against the charge and Ms X has used this right.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him a COVID-19 business grant. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council respond to his complaint and concerns about a tree. This is because the Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and there is nothing further we can achieve from investigating this complaint.

Summary: Mr B says the Council misled the Planning Committee which influenced its decision to grant planning permission. Although officers failed to correct one piece of information at the Committee meeting there is no evidence this affected the final decision.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council responded when she asked to move house because she was at risk of domestic abuse. This caused Ms X distress. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a duplicate parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consult him about his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant enough injustice by the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice as she has sought to challenge its actions at court. We will not investigate her concerns about the Council’s enforcement agents as the Council has provided a suitable way forward and there are other bodies better placed to deal with complaints about their conduct.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council appointed a social worker to work with her and her family who was unprofessional and caused her and her family distress. She also complained the Council failed to include her children’s views in its decision making and did not act on her complaints regarding her children’s foster care. She said this caused her and her family emotional distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed escalating Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to issue Ms X with an apology and provide a £150 goodwill award. It should also remind its staff of the impor

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council drafted an EHC plan and a four-month delay in naming a school for secondary transfer and in providing a right of appeal. This was fault, delayed a right of appeal and caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal process. The matters complained of are not separable from the conduct of the process.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take effective action to deal with nuisance caused by a derelict residential property next to his home. The Council delayed in producing an options appraisal after it inspected the property in November 2020 and it failed to keep Mr X informed of its plans. These faults had an adverse impact on Mr X for which the Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s court action as the matter falls outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a council officer provided false information to third parties as the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging to remove garden waste. Any fault by the Council has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: The investigation of this complaint about the decisions made by a building control officer is discontinued. This is because further investigation would not be able to resolve a dispute over the interpretation of building regulations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove trees near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, or a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X, to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to deal with a representation against two penalty charge notices, issued to Ms X for driving in a bus lane, and that an enforcement agent visited. I am satisfied the Council will take appropriate action to remedy the injustice including cancelling the enforcement visit costs and giving Ms X a further opportunity to pay the debt.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Mr Z, received appropriate care, and also failed to complete his mental capacity assessment and care and support reassessment. The Council was not at fault in relation to these matters. However, it is at fault for delaying in making a decision about the most appropriate action to take to progress the case. It should take steps to prevent any further drift occurring.