LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We find service failure for the Council’s delay finding Miss X’s child a new specialist placement. This caused Miss X distress. We are satisfied with the Council’s apology and offer of a payment to remedy this distress. We do not find fault with the child’s special educational provision while the Council found a new placement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council’s part caused the complainant’s son to lose the opportunity to take public examinations. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the complainant has already received, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation. The Council has acknowledged the impact of the unauthorised use of the site, offered a financial remedy and apology to Ms X, and confirmed its plans to relocate the operation within a reasonable timescale. We consider this represents a suitable remedy for the injustice caused, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised about his child. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint about data protections matters.

Summary: We will not investigate most of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s early help services because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate some of the complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council referred to her daughter, D, as a year five student instead of being five years old in consultations it sent to special schools, causing delay finding her a place. She also said the Council delayed responding to her complaint. The Council delayed finding D a school place, causing Ms X uncertainty, however it was not caused by misinformation. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint which caused her distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about his care under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider all of Mr X’s concerns and time limits for accepting them; and convene a panel review. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise; make a payment to reflect the upset and uncertainty caused; properly consider the concerns not yet investigated, decide whether these should now be investigated under the statutory procedure and if so, a way forward; a

Summary: The Council acknowledged failings in the way it dealt with the assessment and care planning for Miss Y before the involvement of this office, but it failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss Y and her mother.

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding her children who are in foster care because the matters relate to decisions made by a court. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her requests for information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and the courts are better placed to consider this complaint if Mr Y wants to pursue the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging a council tax premium for second homes. This is because the law says such decisions can only be challenged by judicial review.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to risk assess and take enough action against a Port Operator’s shuttle bus service’s use of a mini-roundabout and a local highway as collection point. She said this is causing road safety risks and congestion and impact’s her and other local residents. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views as a highway’s authority. It therefore made decisions it was entitled to make.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child with a suitable education between September and December 2024. She says this impacted their education and emotional wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about a welfare check performed by the Council. This is because we consider she has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider Miss Y’s complaint

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending him a bill for business rates for properties he does not own. This is because it is not warranted by the alleged misjustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council concerning Mr X’s special educational needs. Matters between 2018 and 2024 are historic and we could not carry out a robust investigation. Mr X would also have had a right of appeal against a council decision to cease his Education Health and Care Plan in 2024 it would have been reasonable to use if he was still living in its area at that time.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council distributed an email which she said contravened its duty of neutrality. The Council already apologised and implemented service improvements. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide a financial allowance to the complainant for the care of a child. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s failure to ensure her disabled child, B, received the care and support they needed when living at home. She also complained about the Council’s failure to commission the agreed respite she needed due to carer exhaustion. We find the Council failed to properly deal with Miss Y’s statutory children’s complaint. We have investigated and found fault causing injustice in some parts of Miss Y’s complaint which the Council has agreed to apologise for and make a payment of £1000.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed responding to her following an annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise for the delay and make a remedy payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bridleway because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly investigate an allegation made about a teacher. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.