LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her children 30 years ago and the new evidence she says is now available. This is because the decision to remove Mrs X’s children was made by a court and the law says we cannot investigate.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of waste containers for recycling. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council refused to replace a missing garden waste bin. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council charging a council tax premium for second homes. This is because the law says such decisions can only be challenged by judicial review. And, it is reasonable for Mrs B to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision to apply this premium to her property.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint from Mr X about his son's Independent Review Panel (IRP) following his school exclusion. This is because we have no power to investigate the actions of IRPs for academy schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not properly addressing his neighbour’s care and support needs and not taking appropriate action to address their anti-social behaviour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and Mr X does not have consent to complain on behalf of his neighbour.

Summary: The Council commissioned enforcement agent was at fault for not providing evidence that it had authority to enter Mr X’s premises. However, the Council had already provided Mr X with evidence it had a liability order, so this did not cause an injustice. The enforcement agent was also at fault for failing to consider whether to respond to Mr X’s concerns through the complaints’ procedures. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for this and issue a reminder to the enforcement agent.

Summary: We have found that both councils – Westmorland & Furness and Cumberland – caused delays in their handling of Mr X’s linked complaints about children’s social care. Both will now apologise to Mr X and will take action to improve their respective services. Cumberland will also make a symbolic payment which recognises

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw an offer of a disabled facilities grant. The complaint is too late and we have seen no reason why Mr X could not have contacted us much sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to properly repair a large pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with a complaint about a failure to update public planning records for work to a tree in a conservation area. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on reports of damage to a listed building and a failure to respond to the complaint. There is not enough evidence of personal injustice to justify an investigation. Also, we consider an investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education to his daughter when she was unable to attend school, and the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan. We find fault causing a loss of education for Mr X’s daughter, and avoidable distress and frustration for the parents. The Council has agreed symbolic payments for the loss of education and avoidable distress, and it will review its alternative education policy and practice and ensure Education, Health and Care plans are issued on time. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated smoke nuisance. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed waste collections and poor complaint handling. The Council has implemented measures to ensure the green waste collections are made according to schedule. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Also, we do not consider that Mrs X suffered a significant personal injustice because of the complaint procedure alone to warrant an investigation on this point.

Summary: Mr F complained about the way the Council dealt with his application for a home improvement grant. We found fault which caused him time and trouble and to miss out on having solar panels installed. The Council has agreed to fund the installation of solar panels to remedy that injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care of Ms X’s child as it is now clear that the matters complained of are ones that either were or could reasonably have been mentioned during court proceedings. Only a court could order different living arrangements for the child.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict its contact with a third party in line with its unreasonable customer policy. No restrictions have been placed on the complainant therefore the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker’s handling of her brother’s case and that the social worker had misled her into thinking the Council would pursue legal action through the court of protection. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: The Council failed to consider an interim review Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they stopped attending school in April 2024. It also delayed reviewing the Plan when Y’s alternative provision failed. This caused Miss X a period of uncertainty and Y to miss out on two terms of the provision in their Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and review its approach to interim EHC Plan reviews.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in assessing Mr X’s child’s special educational needs and issuing a final Educational, Health and Care Plan that provided additional support. There was also fault in failing to consider if the Council’s duty under s.19 Education Act to provide full-time education was triggered, or to keep a part-time timetable under review. As a result, Mr X’s child did not receive alternative education on par with what they could expect to receive in school. There was also service failure in the transfer of records. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic p

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider the risks posed to her and her neighbours when it asked them to place their bins for collection in a location which was difficult to access for older and disabled residents. The Council was not at fault for how it made its decision to change the waste collections. However the Council failed to address Ms X’s concerns in its complaint response and this caused Ms X frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of contact restrictions in line with its unreasonable customer policy. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation, and it has not caused the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.