LGO Individual Decisions

The Council failed to decide if it was “necessary” to provide appropriate free transport to enable Ms X’s adult daughter, Miss Y, to attend the college named in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It confused matters for adult learners, like Miss Y, who began their course after the age of 19, with the education transport rules for sixth form students. The Council’s amended Transport Policy 2024/2025 was not in line with the Education Act 1996 or case law for 19–25 year old learners with an EHC Plan. The faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration, avoidable time and trouble and uncertainty

We found the Council delayed for 13 months in arranging alternative educational provision from February 2024 after Mrs X’s child, Y, was unable to attend school. This is the second time we have found the Council at fault for failing to provide education to Y. This caused Y to miss out on a suitable education and caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not apply his single person council tax discount and wrongly instructed enforcement agents to take debt recovery action against him. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. The Council was not at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s council tax account or for instructing enforcement agents. The Council was at fault for its lack of communication with Mr X, which caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about parking outside her property, because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because there is not enough evidence of fault. We have no powers to consider concerns about the standard of care arranged by the NHS.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child and for not putting in place suitable education when the child was out of school. This meant the child had to wait much longer than they should for support with their special educational needs and missed out on education they should have received. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise the loss of education, special educational provision and delays issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also agreed to carry out a

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to meet is Equality Act duties in its assessment of her housing application and delayed accepting her need for an additional bedroom. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since Spring 2024 when it found their accommodation impacted the health and wellbeing of the family. We found no fault by the Council in how it considered and applied its allocation scheme. It offered a symbolic payment to Ms C as part of its complaints process for its inability to attend a meeting and an omission in its complaint’s response. This was an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the inconvenience this cause her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to inform the complainants about changes to the Right to Buy discounts. It is reasonable to expect the complainants to use the alternative court remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ending his housing benefit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. And it is reasonable to expect him to make a latte appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Z’s complaint about legal proceedings involving the Council. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about court action and what happened in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Z’s complaint about how the Council handled disrepair in her council home. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she told it she was a victim of domestic abuse. We find the Council at fault in its handling of her initial approach, including its treatment of her at its offices, its failure to complete a Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence risk assessment, and its failure to provide interim accommodation without delay. We also find fault in the Council’s delay in accepting the relief and main housing duties, its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation and unsafe areas, its failure to inform Ms X of h

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan review delay, communication issues and delays in replying to her complaint. We are unlikely to be able to significantly add to the Council’s reply to her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise nuisance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to allegations made against her landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. The Council has increased the personal budget and will backdate any overpayment. The Council has given a detailed response about requests for disability related expenditure and will consider this further if it receives supporting evidence. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to the complaint and it is unlikely we would add anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her tenancy agreement and an incentive payment to her landlord. The complaint is late. There is no indication Ms X could not have complained earlier and no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, Ms X has not suffered a sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Ms X’s debt from a Penalty Charge Notice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his local welfare fund applications. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s process for applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. This is because the Council accepted its error and has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a remedy for Ms X’s injustice and improving its service for others.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about housing register eligibility. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything worthwhile to the Council’s response or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor crossing her property because it relates to the Council’s function as a social housing landlord and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour generated by the site because the Council has not had the opportunity to consider the complaint.