LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to keep proper records or to fully respond to Mr X’s subject access request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her information following her Subject Access Request because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a retrospective planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not arrange alternative provision for a child who could not attend school, and the Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to reflect his loss of education. The Council was also at fault because of a delay in responding to the complaint, but this did not cause an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to resort to court action for the compensation she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s children’s services have dealt with matters concerning a child. This is because the complainant is not a suitable representative to complaint on behalf of the child.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process for issuing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide access to suitable, full-time education when her child was unable to attend school. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a member conduct complaint as we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. The Council was at fault for failing to notify Mr X of his review rights after it decided it no longer owed him a housing duty in May 2024. It was also at fault for its delayed and confusing responses to Mr X’s complaint. However, the Council was not at fault for failing to consider the suitability of his interim accommodation as Mr X moved out before the Council had time to review this. The Council has agreed to apologise, reinstate Mr X’s right of review and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress, frus

Summary: Mrs E complained on behalf of her son Mr E that the Council’s social care assessments were delayed. And the Council did not agree to their request for a reasonable adjustment. We uphold the complaint because of the delay in the assessment and in checking Mr E’s communication needs. This will have caused Mr E some distress. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this fault and to review its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened to Mr X’s leg when he was being lifted in a care home. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Child in Need plan and its complaints process. 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: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to remove abandoned vehicles from the development on which he lives. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to properly consider its duty to remove abandoned vehicles. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X; taking action now to properly consider its duty; and making service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Councillor’s conduct and the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the matter. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to provide Ms X with appropriate support to manage her finances. The Council commissioned care provider, which supported Ms X to manage her finances, failed to ensure the situation was appropriately resolved and the Council allowed the situation to drift. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. It has also agreed to meet with her to arrange a suitable repayment plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a planning application assessment. This is because there is no evidence of significant injustice.

Summary: There was a failure to issue a carer’s support plan for Mr X which caused him avoidable frustration and uncertainty about the outcome of his carer’s assessment. The Council will apologise and issue Mr X with a carer’s support plan.

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The majority of issues complained of centre around planning matters including alleged planning breaches and enforcement issues relating to a property in the area near to his home. Some of the issues Mr X complained about are out of time for us to investigate. Also, there is either no injustice caused to Mr X himself by the substantive issues or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. Mr X’s complaint flows from an application for a place at an academy school. We have no powers to consider complaints about admission to academy schools.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to find a suitable educational placement for her daughter C or provide her with a suitable full-time education since May 2023. We found some fault causing injustice to Miss B and C. The Council has agreed to apologise to them both, make symbolic payments totalling £800 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s failure to declare a conflict of interest. We cannot investigate personnel issues and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his housing application. This is because the Council has apologised for any faults identified and taken corrective action. further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with his children. Mr X has started court action, so we have no power to investigate the complaint.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to deal with Mrs B’s complaints to it. It was entitled to decide that it did not have a duty to provide alternative educational provision when her son could not attend school, but it should have reviewed its decision and arranged the provision sooner when it received new information. There was no fault when the Council took two weeks longer than usually allowed to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan. The Council’s shortcomings caused distress and frustration, and meant that Mrs B’s child missed out on educational provision. The