LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education for her child when they were out of school. Mrs X also complained her child was not receiving the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have not investigated this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X’s appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or were too closely linked to the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council included incorrect information in a Child Protection Conference report. Further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council amending Miss Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We do not have the power to investigate the complaint as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaints. One matter is closely related to matters we have already considered. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council operated the statutory complaints process relating to social care matters. And the Council had indicated when Miss X approached us that it would deal with her complaints about educational provision, so there would be no useful purpose in us doing so before it completes its work.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and a possible statutory nuisance. This is because part of the complaint is late. We are unlikely to find fault in relation to the complainant’s concerns about how the Council considered noise issues. The Complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability and exemptions because it is out of time and could be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council’s decision to have a Child Protection Plan. We are unlikely to find fault which caused its decision. And as the Child Protection Plan has now ended, we are unlikely to achieve a significantly worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax overpayment as the original decision could be appealed to a tribunal and is out of time. There is also insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s liability for veterinary fees, because we cannot decide liability for a financial claim. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim for liability through the courts. In any case we cannot achieve Mr X’s desired outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Miss X’s child, Y, with a suitable education, failed to secure Y’s special educational provision and communicated poorly with Miss X when it changed its decision to provide education other than at school (EOTAS). This caused Miss X confusion, frustration, distress and uncertainty and Y missed education to which they were entitled. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its service.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about reports for the courts because we cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to communicate effectively with Miss X regarding her child’s placement. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly identifying the nearest relative when Mr Y was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The Council has already apologised to Mr X which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s occupational therapy assessment. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed in taking action despite recognising category one hazards at his accommodation. We find the Council at fault for a delay in taking enforcement action when category one hazards were identified. This caused Mr B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr B and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order Mrs X says discriminates against young people with disabilities. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making process and only the courts can determine if the Council complied with its legal obligations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before deciding to grant planning permission. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking, and we do not consider a failure in the complaint process alone causes a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve an application for work on protected trees. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before deciding to grant planning permission. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, and we do not consider a failure in the complaint process alone causes a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before deciding to grant planning permission.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to send invitations to renew garden waste collection subscriptions by email. The re is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained about the care and support provided to his mother and about the Council’s actions in arranging it. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs C’s liability for Council Tax and the way the Council has managed her account. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs C to use her right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and there is not enough evidence of fault otherwise to warrant us investigating.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his son, A’s, Education and Health Care needs assessment following an Order the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal made in May 2024. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in finalising A’s needs assessment. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £300 to recognise the uncertainty the delay caused him.