LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about street lighting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

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: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict her contact, the scheduling of contact sessions with her child and information contained in court reports. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. We cannot consider the content of court reports.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a penalty charge notice. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to reimburse her with care costs it agreed to pay following the outcome of a previous complaint to us. Ms X also complained the Council has wrongly calculated a contribution towards her care costs she considered unaffordable for her. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has dealt with the matter. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns about large clumps and spilled tar which was left on the pavement in front of her property and on the road she lives on, after the Council’s contractor carried out works on the road. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Occupational Therapist (OT) assigned to her mother, Ms M. We have already considered these matters and determined they are inseparable from matters considered by the Courts. We will also not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council refused to change Ms M’s social worker. The Council has already assigned a new social worker to her. Further investigation would achieve nothing more.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council did not consider her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) as Ms X could have appealed against it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We will not investigate the associated complaint about officer conduct as there is insufficient, separable injustice caused to Ms X from this and it is unlikely we could achieve any meaningful outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council refused to investigate their complaint about matters related to the safeguarding of their grandchildren. The Council was at fault for not considering relevant matters in its decision to refuse Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. It will apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable frustration caused by its fault, re-take its decision in line with the statutory guidance and take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: Mr X complained about issues securing alternative education and Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan provision for his son, Y. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. Mr X said Y missed education and plan provision. We found communication from the Council was poor, frustrating Mr X. The Council should apologise.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's conduct during an appeal to The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability – SEND). We have no jurisdiction to consider a complaint about the Council’s actions during an appeal.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y. Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide her son, Z, with suitable full-time education from February 2023 until November 2023. Ms Y also complained the Council failed to reimburse her for education she funded from March 2023 to July 2023. Ms Y said Z missed education and this impacted her financially. We have ended the investigation as the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide a suitable alternative education for her daughter C since she started attending her current school in January 2025. We have not found fault with actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a civil enforcement officer gave incorrect advice as it is unlikely we will find fault causing an injustice to the complainant and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue him a Residents Parking Permit. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her adult daughter, Miss Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan by a year following an order to do so by the SEND tribunal. The Council delayed issuing Miss Y’s EHC Plan by a year which meant she lost the opportunity to receive an education and the specialist provision in the EHC Plan during that period. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to acknowledge the loss of education and the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X saying that the Council did not clear the debris on a road for four months, as we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for Z when Z was unable to attend school. I have found fault in the Council failing to properly consider if it had a duty under s.19 Education Act 1996 to provide alternative education in early 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise and review the situation by taking fresh decisions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the college named in his daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Mrs X with a blue badge. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision that a highway serving her property does not require repairs, and how it communicated its decision. The law allows Ms X to take the core highway maintenance matter to the Magistrates’ court, which it would not be unreasonable for her to do. This takes her repairs complaint outside of our jurisdiction. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s communication of its decisions, nor sufficient significant personal injustice stemming from this issue, to warrant us investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to provide an appropriate level of service and failed to abide by statutory timescales in respect of her daughter’s special educational needs. We will not investigate Mrs X’s late complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan needs assessment. Nor will we investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, receives suitable education when they were unable to attend school for health reasons. I have found fault by the Council that caused Y to miss out on education and placed strain on the rest of the family who had to provide additional care during school hours. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and implement service improvements.