LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about the lack of alternative provision provided to her child who has been off school for two years. Miss X said this caused unnecessary distress and impacted her child’s education. We found the Council at fault which caused Miss X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apologise to Miss X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council missed deadlines in her sons Education, Health and Care Plan and the communication has been poor. This has caused distress and her son to miss education. The Council has accepted fault and has offered a package of remedies.

Mrs X complained that the Council, in respect of her child B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan delayed holding the annual review, issuing an updated EHC Plan and putting the provision in place. We found the Council delayed holding and completing the annual review process, which caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and financial hardship, and B to miss out on support. The Council has acknowledged fault and agreed to a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided not to provide his child with transport to the school named on their Education Health and Care Plan. Mr X says this impacted his work and caused his child distress. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Miss X complains an error within the Council’s computer system took her children off the school roll. The school refused to take them back, causing frustration and distress to Miss X and her children, Y and Z. We find fault with the Council for the computer error, but the apologies given already are a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively fund completed adaptation works her father, Mr X, paid for and arranged privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund her relative, Ms Y, for care fees paid directly to her care provider after the date the Council agreed to fund Ms Y’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because parts of the complaint are late. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother, Mrs Z’s, domiciliary care as these complaints are late. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council told the family Mrs Z’s care would be free but then charged her. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council breaching the Equality Act during the validation process for the complainant’s planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to plan and provide support for her child, Y, when they reached adulthood and was due to leave Council care. The Council investigated Ms X's complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault. However, it failed to provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice the faults caused to Y, Ms X and Z (Ms X’s other child). The Council agreed to make symbolic payments to Y and Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax premiums as the matter is out of time and there was an appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her child with suitable education and delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. There was an eight month delay in issuing the Plan, however we have not found fault in the Council’s decisions that Ms X’s child had access to suitable schooling and it was not necessary for it to provide alternative education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delayed Plan.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed accepting a housing duty towards him. He also complained the Council offered unsuitable interim accommodation and communicated poorly. We have found the Council at fault for its delay accepting the main housing duty and for its poor communication with Mr X. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to keep the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation under review between September 2023 and March 2024. We have not found the Council’s delays caused Mr X to miss any opportunities for suitable permanent accommodation. We have found the Council’s fa

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about ground maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control issue. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it prope

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing her housing need and for poor communication. It has already apologised and offered a payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused which was an appropriate remedy. There was no fault in the way it has applied the policy or in what it allows Miss X to bid for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to disclose information about a third party who is a tenant in a property which the complainant owns. It would be reasonable for the complainant to make a formal subject access request and if this is unsuccessful there is another body better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council breached his human rights in its assessment of the risk he may pose to his child. Mr X would like Council reports about him changed. We have discontinued the investigation because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint alleging the Council failed to protect her late relative from financial abuse and coercive behaviour. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for the delay in securing alternative education provision for Miss X’s daughter when she could not attend school. This caused her to miss a half term of education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Miss X a payment in recognition of the missed education.