LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his concerns. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability and delay because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the Council has remedied part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns in relation to his late father. This is because Mr X’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain sooner.

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 this complaint about the Council’s handling of a councillor conduct complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s sharing of information about a school admissions appeal. This is because Mr X’s complaint flows from an appeal for a place at an academy school and we have no powers to consider such complaints.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her request to allow her summer born daughter to start Reception at school after her fifth birthday in September 2026. The Council failed to properly consider her request and decided it was in her best interests to start school in 2025. The complaint procedure also failed to identify this failure. The Council agreed to send Mrs Y an apology, reconsider her request, and review its published arrangements police and online guidance to ensure its legally correct. It will also provide guidance to Delay Panel members about t

Summary: The Council failed to complete an annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan on time and failed to provide a right of appeal in 2023. The Council also failed to consider if its duty to provide alternative provision under s.19 Education Act 1996 was engaged when a pupil had to be withdrawn from school. This caused distress and uncertainty whether provision was missed. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of the minutes of a Scrutiny Committee, because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint made by a parish council as it is not within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. There is not enough evidence of fault. The Council considered the request, explained its reason to refuse, and offered an alternative. The Ombudsman cannot decide the Council has breached the Equality Act, the complainant can make a claim of disability discrimination to court.

Summary: The outcome of an independent stage two complaint investigation did not provide a suitable remedy when A missed education. The Council failed to secure special educational provision and failed to provide alternative education. The Council has agreed to make additional symbolic payments and service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found a sixteen-month delay by the Council in updating the Plan. This caused unnecessary time, trouble, inconvenience and distress. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his concerns of staff misconduct. Most of the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault in recent matters to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to impose a communication restriction. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that X seeks.

Summary: Miss B says the Council left her family in B&B accommodation and delayed issuing a decision on her homelessness application. I have found the Council at fault. Miss B was in B&B accommodation for 24 weeks and there was around 10 weeks delay issuing her main housing duty decision. The Council has agreed to pay redress for the delays and expenses incurred by Miss B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s liability for damage at a property, because Mrs X has an alternative legal remedy. Claims such as these are best resolved by the courts and in any case, we cannot decide on liability, therefore it would be reasonable to expect Mrs X to use this alternative remedy.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to move her to suitable alternative accommodation after accepting she was homeless, despite her former abusive partner knowing she remained there. It failed to move her and her large family to suitable accommodation, plan for the possibility of larger families needing larger properties, failed to show it explored the private rental sector, and failed to provide her with the help initially offered. The Council agreed to send her a written apology, pay £3,750 for the distress caused, make £250 monthly payments up to si

Summary: X complained about the way the Council dealt with planning application and planning enforcement issues relating to their neighbour’s land. X believes that, because of the Council’s decisions, the land may now be used for commercial purposes without proper planning controls, and that this might affect their home, which is a listed building. We found fault and the Council agreed to our recommendations to deal with the injustice it caused and avoid recurrence of the same fault in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this council tax error following a death because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments around accessing one of its Household Recycling Centres. Nor will we investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council threatened to remove her larger refuse bin when she complained, sent her too many communications and failed to carry out an equality impact assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action over planning and licensing breaches from a neighbouring property. She said the breaches resulted in noise and anti-social behaviour, causing her distress. We found the Council took suitable steps to investigate Ms X’s complaints and was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability as Miss X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Complaints about data protection matters are for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council would not respond to a complaint about a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident at the waste and recycling centre. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response which we could not add to, and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.