LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant’s son, and its response to her subsequent complaint. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice. The Council has given a thorough response which it is unlikely we would add to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in response to a complaint relating to the welfare of a child. This is because we cannot regard the complainant as a suitable representative for the child in the matters about which she has complained.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax banding. This is because we cannot investigate the decision made by the Valuation Office Agency.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in Court proceedings. We will not investigate his complaints about children services’ events which happened more than 12 months ago as there are no reasons to justify doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misuse of personal data as it is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about council tax support. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council changed its policy. Miss X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against her liability and this part of her complaint is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process and the support provided to Miss X’s son. The complaint is late and is also outside our jurisdiction as it relates to matters which were or could have been appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a delay when deciding the support Miss X should receive for her special educational needs. It has already offered suitable remedies for the injustice caused, so we have made no further recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because the matter is out of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged conflict of interest by a council officer who dealt with his complaint. This is because the issue did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide a suitable education and support for her grandchild’s (Y) special educational needs. We found the Council to be at fault because it failed to provide alternative education whilst a school place was found and took too long to issue a revised Education Health and Care Plan. This caused distress and affected the welfare of Mrs X and Y. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council used inaccurate information to justify issuing him with a Community Protection Warning. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with part of Mr X’s complaint about data protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about short term residential adult social care. The care provider accepted where things went wrong, apologised, and made changes to its service. It is unlikely we would add to that investigation or reach a different outcome. We are satisfied with the actions already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has not provided information he requested. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council support after the Council persuaded the complainant to let a tenant remain in his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and because the matter is currently being considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Council has explained that, to do so, would prejudice care proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating.

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 Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to properly safeguard her grandchild. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. We also could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C’s complaint about inaccuracies in a Council assessment. This is because the main points of complaint are closely connected to court action, which we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to his complaint. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of Mr X’s family. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking. The recent child protection decision was one the Council was entitled to take given the nature of the referral it received. Most of the outcomes Mr X is seeking could only be delivered by a court, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to consider data matters. We also lack powers to recommend disciplinary action against staff. Matters dating back significantly more than 12 months are also late, a

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council removed her family’s memorial tree in a crematorium without warning. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to the family who visit the site nearly every week. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X.