LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council licenced a residential park home and considered Fit and Proper Person nominations. We do not find fault with how the Council licenced the site or considered the nominations. The Council was at fault as its Fit and Proper Person register did not contain all relevant information, but this has now been corrected.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Adult Social Care services failed in its duty of care despite a safeguarding concern and adult needs assessment to help her in a dispute with her housing provider. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: The Council secured the one-to-one support provision set out in the Education, Health and Care Plan of Miss X’s child, Y. The Council was not at fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a refund for missed garden waste collections. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in investigating an alleged breach of planning control. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its final decision on the enforcement case, and its apology for the delay in concluding the matter was an appropriate way to address that part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install a noticeboard and CCTV at a local park. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council delayed removing a Land Registry restriction from his late mother’s property after he had paid outstanding care debt in October 2024. He said the delay now means he is liable for new stamp duty charges on the property which came into effect in April 2025. The Council was at fault for delaying the removal of the restriction on the property causing uncertainty and frustration to Mr Y, the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to resolve flooding of her property. We found fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s flooding reports. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and hold a meeting with Mrs X to provide her with clear and accurate information about the Council’s plans for the area affected by the flooding. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Rates Relief Scheme to a company’s business rates. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s contact with the Council and its complaints handling. The Council has already investigated under the children’s statutory complaint procedures, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged by a poorly repaired section of a road. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mr Y received his full allocated support hours, and so he missed out on services which he was entitled to receive. The failure also had a detrimental impact on his mother in her caring role. The Council accepts there was a shortfall and agrees to make a payment to Mr Y and Ms X to recognise the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s housing allocation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s application of their policy to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays following the Annual Reviews of her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council’s failure to comply with the statutory review timescales. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic distress payment and carry out some service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delays in the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s children’s statutory complaint. This is because the Council has already apologised for the delays. Therefore, there is no significant injustice remaining to justify our involvement. Nor will look at Miss X’s complaint about the substantive matters, because Miss X had not asked the Council to complete all stages of the procedure, and it would be reasonable to expect her to do so.

Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Miss X that the personal budget in her care plan did not meet her care and support needs. We find the Council at fault for not following the statutory guidance when it completed its assessment and care plan for Miss X, and for inadequate complaint handling. This caused significant distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax exemption because there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him about charges for adult social care. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application. Mr X had the right to seek a review within 21 days and then appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consider whether it owed her a homelessness duty and issue a decision with review rights. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council invoicing him for removal of his tree that fell across the road. This is because the courts are better placed to decide on Mr X’s liability.

Summary: Miss X complained about annual review delays and a failure to put alternative provision in place for her child Y when they stopped attending school in April 2024. The Council delayed ensuring Y had alternative provision in place between June and October 2024 and it issued an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan without holding a fresh annual review or issuing a decision letter. The Council agreed to make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. I cannot consider Y’s education and provision after October 2024 because Miss X has appealed to the SE

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to notify them of planning applications and amended plans at a neighbouring property and failed to properly consider the impact on their residential amenity. The Council did carry out the correct notifications and considered the impact on Mr and Mrs X’s residential amenity before approving the applications.