LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate whether the amount stated on a Council Tax, Court issued, Liability Order is correct. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council attempting to recover less than the stated amount.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. If Mrs X was unhappy with the content of her child’s plan, it was reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not assess Mr X as needing supported living. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing benefit. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action and there is nothing further we would add or recommend.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable, full-time education for his son. We have discontinued our investigation as Mr X has submitted an application to seek a judicial review.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide school transport for Miss X’s child Y to the school named in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council will apologise to Miss X for the avoidable frustration caused by its fault. It will also provide school transport for Y, reimburse Miss X for the mileage costs she incurred in taking Y to school, and take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Office communicated with him over a decision to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood zone. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a councillor. In both cases, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with Mr Y’s adult social care, resulting in his needs not being met and causing distress. The Council is at fault because it did not take action to reduce identified risks as part of Mr Y’s Care and Support plan before reducing his care provision. Mr Y suffered the risk of harm. The Council should apologise, pay Mr Y £250 and review Mr Y’s case.

Summary: We could not add to the findings of an independent investigator who was extremely critical of the Council’s dealings with Mr F and his children. Mr F is concerned about the children’s education now their mother has removed them from school. We cannot investigate this complaint because the Council has not had an opportunity to respond.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Miss Y, about the Council’s decision to include Mr X’s main residence as an asset available for use in paying care fees when calculating his finances and asking him to separately register the flats in the property to realise them as assets. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us going behind its decision. It is not unreasonable for Mr X and his family to put the legal dispute at the core of the complaint before a court. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcomes sought.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council ignored his safeguarding concerns for his child. The matter is closely related to current court proceedings about the child’s safety and care arrangements. The existence of this court action creates a permanent and absolute legal bar that prevents us from investigating this matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of contact between him and his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been subject of court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange his transfer to another local authority area, started and stopped the transfer process three times and failed to tell him the Council was not responsible for arranging a housing transfer until 2024. The way the Council reached the decision that it was not responsible for Mr X’s housing transfer was not affected by fault. However, the Council’s communications with Mr X and Mrs Y have been confused. That raised their expectations and caused them frustration now the accurate position has been explained. An apology, payment to Mr X and Mrs Y,

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax exemption and backdating as these matters can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled a safeguarding concern she raised about her relative. We find the Council at fault for a flawed safeguarding decision, an unreasonable delay in completing a care and support assessment, and a failure to involve Mrs X in that assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y within statutory deadlines and failed to provide alternative provision while she was out of school. We find the Council at fault for delays, causing uncertainty and distress for Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council and bailiffs acting on its behalf, wrongly enforced a Penalty Charge Notice for a traffic offence which was committed by a different person with the same name. We upheld the complaint. The Council will apologise, make a payment for the avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. The Council will also review its computer system.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of the Council’s assessment for her child. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in her detention under the Mental Health Act. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Some of Ms X’s concerns are matters for other bodies to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development to a property in a village where the complainant lives. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice caused to the complainant to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sister’s needs and in applying to have the deprivation of her liberty authorised. It also failed to ensure she received a consolidated response to all her concerns. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused. It also needs to apply to the Court of Protection to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a pothole damage claim as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to the complainant to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request to ‘stop up’ an area of highway land. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s use of a public recreation ground. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.