LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to fund a residential placement for her child and said the Council’s complaint response did not address all the issues she raised. We have ended our investigation. This is because the Council has already reassessed Mr Y’s needs, reviewed its earlier decision, and put in place additional care and support. There is nothing further an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve at this stage. As we are not investigating the substantive matters, it would not be a proportionate use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint

Summary: There was some fault by the Council in the way it communicated with Ms X about her support hours, and in the number of hours she received. The Council agrees to acknowledge the reduced support and distress Ms X suffered by a payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his council tax arrears. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for extensions at a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, and its apologies were a satisfactory way to address faults in the subsequent communications with the complainant. We also could not achieve one of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in completing Ms X and Mr Y’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. This is because the Council has agreed to pay Ms X and Mr Y £400 and this provides a suitable remedy for the impact of its delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues in connection with the decision to grant an alcohol licence to Cheadle Town football club. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s response. And, because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to use his right of appeal to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept responsibility for maintenance of a wall adjacent to the public highway. This is a private boundary dispute and we cannot determine legal ownership of land. The courts are better placed to decide civil disputes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his light pollution concerns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided conflicting information about the maximum height of new buildings on land adjoining her property and failed to properly consider the impact on her residential amenity. There was one reference to a different maximum height in a delegated decision report, possibly a typographical error, but this did not affect the outcome of the planning application.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in producing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mrs X’s child, Z. The Council also failed to consider its responsibilities to provide education for Z when it became aware Z was not at school, this is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the delay and distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home, and damage to personal property. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. An insurance company is better placed to consider the claim for damaged property.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to meet Mrs Y’s care needs. Ms X says this impacted Mrs Y’s physical health and emotional wellbeing. We find no fault with the Council.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council and Trust failed to involve her in discharge planning for Ms C. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the responses Ms B has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council is wrongly pursuing her for costs of work it carried out in default at her rental property as it is unlikely we will find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process when dealing with a planning permission for a development near a playground in his area. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor of a significant personal injustice caused Mr X, to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about neglect in a care home. Substantive parts of Miss X’s concern were considered in court, and it would have been reasonable to include all concerns as part of that claim.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about inaccurate recording of data in breach of data protection regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about boundary changes. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.