LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate part of X’s complaint because the primary issue about their children’s safety is being considered by a court. We will not investigate the remainder because the issues relate too closely to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an information request as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office. We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about this, as in isolation, this does not cause Mr X a level of injustice that would warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, on behalf of his son Mr Y, about the Council’s actions in relation to ongoing court proceedings for Mr Y’s child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider the complaint until the ongoing proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and the charges applied by the Council. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to apply our discretion to investigate the issues raised now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue her child, Y’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review within statutory timescales which caused a delay in Y receiving Occupational Therapy (OT) provision. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan by 27 weeks following an annual review. It also meant Y lost the opportunity to receive specialist OT provision in the Plan between February and July 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make payments to recognise Y’s loss of OT provision and the distress and uncertainty caused

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to respond to Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to reimburse Mr X’s transport costs. The Council has agreed to re-imburse Mr X’s costs and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged debt owing to the Council for a disabled facilities grant given thirty years ago. The passage of time makes it difficult to investigate and reach a safe conclusion. However, based on the information that is available it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his contact with his child. There is nothing more we could add to the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints to justify us investigating this matter further. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to ask the court to decide on child contact arrangements as neither we nor the Council have the power to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained that since 2021, the Council has not provided her child with a suitable education. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision while her child was not attending school. This caused a loss of specialist support and avoidable uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out sufficient flood mitigation work on a watercourse near the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a children services family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s offer to place her comments as an annex. We are unlikely to find significant fault in the Council’s decision to suspend a complaint investigation during Court proceedings. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider any factual errors in the assessment. We are unlikely to find significant fault or injustice in not telling her when it shared the assessment with a third party.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not done enough to stop the complainant’s driveway being blocked. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has responded to the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to take the Council to court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed putting alternative provision arrangements in place when her child Z stopped attending school and did not fully secure the provision in Z’s EHC Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed deciding an application for transport assistance, and about the Council’s communication and complaints handling. We have found the Council at fault. We find Z’s missed education provision is likely to be offset by future provision, mitigating this injustice. However, there is a shortfall in therapy provision yet to be addressed. We also find Mrs X experienced

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It provided Mrs X’s child ,Y, with intermittent alternative provision and did not provide all the special educational provision to which they were entitled. Y’s father, Mr X was caused frustration supporting Y. The Council will apologise and pay £1,250 to Mrs X to acknowledge Y’s missed education and provision and make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its service.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a parking penalty charge notice as the matter is now outside our legal remit since the complainant asked the court to consider her case.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her and its refusal to delete her records. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about management of records.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about negative information Mr B said the Council recorded about him. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for her child. Some of the complaint is late, and Ms X has a right of appeal to Tribunal that it is reasonable for her to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole which the Council had failed to repair. This is because Mr C may pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that she was wrongly issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Miss B to put in formal representations to the Council, and if needed, appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council stopped using him as a driver. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the grounds on which the Council prosecuted Mrs X for failure to ensure school attendance. A legal bar prevents us investigating matters that have been subject to court action.