LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a carer shouted at her during a telephone call and falsely accused Mrs X of leaving many voicemails. This is because any injustice arising is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s and Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure an education for their child or the content of their EHC Plan because it is late. We will not investigate part of the complaint because Mrs X and Mr Y had a right to appeal to a tribunal. We cannot investigate part of the complaint because Mrs X and Mr Y appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because there is no worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his complaint about a penalty charge notice issued due to his child’s attendance at school. There is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. Our intervention would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome, and we will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s subject access request. This is because this matter concerns personal data; the Information Commissioner’s office is best placed to deal with it.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled a complaint about a data protection matter as any remaining injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council financially assessed her adult daughter, Miss W, who has care and support needs. She said the Council did not consider Miss W’s monthly outgoings. The Council made an error with its assessment of Miss W’s benefit entitlement but corrected this and apologised. There is no other fault in the financial assessment. The Council also delayed in acknowledging Mrs Y’s complaint but has apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his son’s social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of council tax matters. This is because most of the complaint is late, and for more recent matters there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot investigate part of the complaint as it relates to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty when Mr X was homeless. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court. It is open to him to ask the court for permission to make a late appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor performance on accessibility issues in the Council’s area. Nor in the way the Council considered the complaint. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Also we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the complaints procedure alone to justify an investigation into this point.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide education and Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan provision for her child, Y, since May 2023. She also complained about delays in the EHC Plan review process. Mrs X said this frustrated and distressed her and Y missed education and plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing a final EHC plan. This frustrated Mrs X’s appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure the therapy set out in Mrs X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused her to miss out on the therapy she needed. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the missed provision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed providing home to school travel assistance for her children. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce his late mother in law’s care package. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to reduce Mrs Y’s care package.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a cemetery hedge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-planning application advice. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: We have not investigated Miss Y’s complaint about events which happened between 2003 and 2005 when she was subject to a child protection plan. This is because there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound decision with a meaningful outcome for Miss Y.

Summary: Mrs X complained about an error made by the Council in calculating when it would fund her husband’s care home placement. We find the Council at fault for delays and miscalculating capital reduction, which caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a report of fly-tipping. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not achieve anything.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council’s school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainants’ council tax bills. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the faults accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made changes to the support in place for two children. This is because further investigation would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: Z complained the Council failed to safeguard their child, Child A. Z said the Council did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child A’s school, leaving them without support. Z also complained about poor communication and complaints handling. The Council processed the Prevent referral in line with government guidance and was not at fault. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delayed stage 1 complaints handling which caused Z frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and offered a symbolic payment for the poor stage 1 com