Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Guidance on jurisdiction : : Examples : : S26(6) generally: The proviso

Guidance for LGO staff

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Search the Guidance for LGO staff sections:

Note If you would like to search other sections of the website please use the search field at the top of the page.

Related Content

Examples: General discretion - the proviso

Where a complainant has already appealed, be it to an independent tribunal or a Minister of State, or where court proceedings have already been taken, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate any part of the complaint:

  • The complainant’s child had Special Educational Needs. There was a delay in issuing a statement, but once it was issued, the provision shown within the statement was made promptly. The complainant successfully appealed the content of the statement and as a result the provision originally made by the Council was increased to comply with the Tribunal ruling. He complained that his son had received insufficient special needs provision meanwhile. The initial delay in issuing the statement of Special Educational Needs, was IN, because this was a separate issue from the provision made and happened before the appeal was lodged. (However, the level of provision made between issuing the statement and the appeal hearing was OUT, because this was the subject of the appeal). Compensation for the initial delay was agreed based on the level of provision awarded on appeal compared with that shown in the statement, however. This was because, had the statement been issued earlier, it appeared likely that the whole appeal process would have been brought forwards.
  • A developer appealed, unsuccessfully, against a condition applied to the planning permission given by the council. He then complained that there had been unreasonable delays in considering the planning application. OUT – the remedy has been used. (But had the complaint been made before the appeal was lodged, it would most probably have been considered reasonable to expect the developer to appeal for non-determination).
  • The complainant was a council tenant, who obtained a court order requiring the council to carry out repairs to his house. The council quickly complied with the court order. The tenant then complained to the Ombudsman about the council’s original failure to carry out these repairs within a reasonable timescale, seeking compensation for the inconvenience and his time and trouble unsuccessfully chasing the council. He said he should not have had to take legal action to get the repairs done. OUT – as he had already sought such remedy as was available to him through the legal process.

Date Updated: 15/07/09