LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has not reimbursed storage costs she incurred in 2024. This is because her complaint is late and I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion and investigate.

Summary: The complaint is on behalf of a residents’ group and about the Council planning team’s inaction over a breach of planning control. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault for its decisions around how to deal with the breach it found. But there was fault by way of delay, not providing updates and not keeping records of key actions. This will have caused the residents some frustration and uncertainty. Delayed complaint responses led to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide an update and make a symbolic payment for the avoidable time and troubl

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils street cleansing vehicles. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has failed to properly enforce its Landlord Licensing scheme. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged lack of support to Miss X and her child from 2017 to 2024, and its decision to begin court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts. It was reasonable for Miss X to raise all concerns as part of the proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s communication. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about long queues at the court on the day of his court hearing. This is because we cannot investigate matters subject to court proceedings or events that happened at court.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about the review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan because she appealed to a tribunal. We cannot investigate the Council’s compliance with a tribunal direction because it is for the tribunal to manage under its own powers. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code were not met.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr Y. This is because most parts of the complaint are late and therefore outside our jurisdiction. And there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Additionally, of the part that is not late, the Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the fault, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal order. She also said the Council delayed securing the special educational provision once the Plan had been finalised. We find the Council at fault for delaying finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan and for further delay in securing the special educational provision. This fault caused Ms X and her son distress and uncertainty. Ms X’s son also suffered a loss of provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic remedy, and make a service improvemen

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a carer’s assessment completed by the Council and the support it then offered. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education when her child’s school did not provide support for her special education and health needs. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it followed the correct process in deciding a suitable school place was available and accessible for Miss X’s child.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding matter. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s contact with staff at a library facility. There is not enough evidence of fault nor significant injustice. Nor will we consider the Council’s complaint handling, because they have acknowledged and apologised for the delay.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint that officers lied about her during care proceedings for her granddaughter because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making regarding a taxi service it provided to her in the mid-late 1990s when she was a Looked After Child. This is because the complaint is late, there are no good reasons to exercise discretion.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about how the Council cared for X when X was a child in care during the 1980s. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to comply with a ruling made by the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is because this complaint relates to personal data and is a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated an attorney when making decisions about the donor’s adult social care. We are satisfied with the Council’s apology and offer of £150. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further, and there is insufficient outstanding injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council failed to implement alternative educational provision for Mr X’s child, Y after they stopped attending school. This was fault which caused Y to miss out on education. The Council has apologised and offered Mr X £7200 to remedy the injustice caused. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions. The Council was also at fault for its delayed complaint responses. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £100 to remedy the injustice caused by this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to respond to a complaint about unspent section 106 money and failure to respond to requests for information. We consider it reasonable to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Also, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s response to his safeguarding referral. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making and care assessments. The Council carried out the assessments in line with legislation. There is no evidence of administrative fault in how it reached those decisions. The Council’s later involvement with the Court of Protection means part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.