LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failed to investigate part of her complaint. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and for failing to investigate part of Mrs B’s complaint. These faults caused Mrs B and her family uncertainty, distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care proceedings and the Council’s related actions. We already decided in 2022 we could not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings. Mr X has begun court action in relation to the remaining elements of his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal of a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for a parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage caused by the Council to the complainant’s household waste bin. This is because we do not consider the alledged fault has caused a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement. Further, it would be reasonable for the complainant to seek to resolve the dispute through the courts or by the Council’s insurers.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against a social housing tenant for anti-social behaviour over a 5-year period. this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of social housing landlords in the management of their tenancies.

Summary: The Council has agreed to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage three and respond to him directly. Mr X can approach the Ombudsman again if he is not happy with the Council’s final response. The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue the investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about public procurement processes because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. There are also other bodies better placed to consider parts of Mrs X’s complaint. It would be reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court if she considers the Council has acted unlawfully.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to continue with a complaint he made about a noise nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find her son, Y, a place at a special school in the last four to five years. She also says the Council has failed to pursue a place at her preferred school. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the intervention therapy specified in her sons Education and Health Care Plan for the past two years. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to provide part of the provision set out in Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, pay

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council treated the complainant after he raised issues about his council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her statutory children’s complaint. She said delays had a significant impact on the family and caused distress. We find the Council at fault for delays in complaint handling, which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has remedied the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his housing application and carrying out a medical assessment. He also complained about the Council’s decisions regarding his housing priority and restrictions on certain types of property. We have ended our investigation of Mr X’s complaint. The Council accepted faults in communication, complaint handling, and delays in processing Mr X’s application. It apologised, backdated Mr X’s housing priority, offered a suitable financial remedy, and offered Mr X a review of its decision on property restrictions. Further investigation by the Ombuds

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council’s computer system to migrate details of Mr X’s business when it changed systems. The Council notified Mr X and other service users of the change and asked them to check and to report any problems.

Summary: Mrs H complained the Council failed to ensure her son received all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan, and it failed to adhere to the statutory timescales following an annual review. We found fault by the Council. It should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Mrs H and her son experienced.

Summary: We found no fault on Mrs B’s complaint about the Council failing to provide her daughter with suitable alternative education provision. It had no reason to consider it as she had a part time school timetable, received support, and was assessed by an educational psychologist as part of her

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council have not dealt with her son Y’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) properly. The Council did not complete an annual review properly, delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint and did not fully complete recommendations arising from its complaint response. Mrs X had her right of appeal delayed, received a late complaint response and did not receive the full remedy agreed in the Council’s complaint response. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £400 for distress and uncertainty, provide an action plan and refer this decision to the Cabinet Member responsible.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of council tax support and discretionary housing payments to Mr X. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the council tax support decision to the valuation Tribunal. There is no fault in the Council informing him that he is ineligible for discretionary housing payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to fix a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highways maintenance because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider whether it had reason to believe he was homeless when he asked it for homeless assistance. As a result, Mr X could have received help to move to alternative accommodation sooner. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced.

Summary: the Council’s failure to follow its procedures when responding to consultation from a neighbouring Council about a proposal to name an ‘integrated resource’ in Mrs M’s son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan ended with the Plan specifying provision that was not available. This has caused disruption to B’s education and considerable uncertainty. We recommended a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her car was damaged. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in failing to address barriers to the complainant’s child’s education and in refusing to reimburse them for costs they incurred. This is because it concerns matters relating to the delivery of education by a school and, as such, falls outside our jurisdiction.