LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him of a planning application, and did not consider the impact of noise when deciding to amend a planning condition. He also complained the Council failed to consider an objection he made on a later application. There was no fault in notification, but the Council did fail to consider applications in 2016, 2017 and 2020 correctly. We recommended it made a payment to ensure an acoustic fence was provided, as originally conditioned.

Summary: We cannot consider Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about admission appeals for academy schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about payment for car parking and the ability to purchase permits in advance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice Mr X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs M’s son, B, missed a considerable amount of education while the Council looked for a suitable school for him. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process leading to officers’ refusal of their application, and will not investigate how the Council dealt with their pre-application planning advice. Mr and Mrs X have used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which takes the Council’s planning process outside our jurisdiction. The claimed effect of the pre-application planning advice forms part of that appeal and investigation of that process would not now lead to a different outcome.

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.

Summary: The complainant, a foster carer, alleged that the Council wrongly removed her son from her care and has failed over a prolonged period to consider properly her status as a foster carer. The Council has investigated the complaint and found fault in the way it dealt with alleged child protection concerns. The Council has agreed to refer the complainant to its Fostering Panel for it to consider whether she should continue to be registered as a foster carer. We have decided to discontinue our investigation until the Fostering Panel’s recommendation and the Council’s decision are known. On

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of parking charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process which granted permission for a development near her property. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X caused by the planning notification process to justify us investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning decision-making process which would have changed the outcome to warrant an investigation. The boundary issue would be a private civil matter between Mrs X and the owner of the development site.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council pursued planning enforcement action against her causing distress over six years. We cannot lawfully investigate because Ms X used a right of appeal to the planning inspector against the enforcement notice. It is reasonable for her to use or have used other rights of appeal which are available regarding such matters as the certificate of lawful development.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide the special educational provision set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. She also complained that the Council communicated poorly with her. Ms X said her child lost out on education, and Ms X lost trust in the Council. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide all the provision in the Education, Health and Care plan. This caused injustice because the child missed out on provision she was entitled to receive. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. We do not find

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of data protection. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider such matters.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council gave wrong information in response to the local search questions, as part of the purchase of his property. The Council said there were no rights of way crossing or adjoining the property. After moving in the Council said the definitive map was wrong and there was likely to be a bridleway going through the land, which walkers regularly use. We found fault with the Council. It has agreed to pay some of Mr B’s legal costs and an additional £1000 towards the cost of screening.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying both the production of a child’s education, health and care plan, and also the arrangement of alternative provision while she could not attend school. Although the Council has already recognised both points of fault, it should now offer a financial remedy for the injustice this created.

Ms B complained that Dorset Council failed to adequately meet her eleven-year- old son’s educational and special educational needs from 2020 until it identified and placed him at a special needs school in 2021. She also complained that Council officers changed frequently, consistently failed to respond to her calls and emails and failed to deal properly with her complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and did not deal with his complaint or communicate with him properly. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. Generally, the Council communicated with Mr X appropriately and did not cause Mr X significant time or trouble. The Council reset the PCN fine so Mr X can pay the discounted rate of £25.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of action in connection with ownership of a piece of land close to Mr X’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new dwelling. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

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

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with her high hedge complaint. We found the Council at fault in handling Ms X’s case and its avoidable delay and poor communication, including about its decision making, caused Ms X injustice. To put matters rights, the Council agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £300 in recognition of her frustration, uncertainty and unnecessary time and trouble. The Council also agreed to review its high hedge procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an alcohol licence application. This is because he had available appeal rights to the Magistrates’ Court to challenge the Council’s decision on the application which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr B is complaining on behalf of his nephew (Child X) who has special educational needs. The Council maintains an Education and Health Care Plan for Child X and Mr B says it has failed to properly review this over three years. Further, Mr B says the Council has failed to provide a suitable placement and education for Child X over this period. We have found the Council delayed in issuing an amended EHCP for Child X. The Council also failed to hold an annual review meeting to a satisfactory standard and has not communicated with Mr B appropriately. We have no jurisdiction to question th

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a meeting the Council held with his mother, Mrs Y. That is because any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to extend its highway register to include land owned by Mr X. Mr X’s complaint is made late to us and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: There is a lack of thorough and consistent information available to support an investigation into this complaint, about a school placement for a child with special educational needs, and other related issues. However, the Council has now offered to re-open discussions with the complainant about this, and we agree this is the best way to resolve the complaint. For this reason, we have discontinued our investigation.