LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Ombudsman carried out several investigations about delay in the Council carrying out Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual reviews for children in its area. We asked the Council questions about the widespread impact of delay. The Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out a significant number of EHC Plan annual reviews for children in its area in 2024. The action proposed by the Council to address the issue is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider a late review request. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and Miss X had a court appeal right that it was reasonable for her to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering her complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council was following the statutory procedure after a non-payment of fine and it is unlikely we would find fault. Additionally, Mrs X has now paid her notice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of a Home Repairs grant application in 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council-commissioned Care Provider at this time. There is an ongoing coroner’s inquest. Until the inquest is complete, we could not come to sound conclusions or achieve a meaningful outcome.

Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to assist with her homelessness application. I found the Council at fault because it failed to provide Miss D with a reasonable level of service and she was caused avoidable time and trouble pursuing her case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to deal with a report of brambles encroaching on Ms X’s property from the grounds of a school. We cannot investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed the complainant’s council tax account. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver education to her child Z when he was out of school. Ms X also complained about how the Council handled Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council delayed reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s communication properly. The Council failed to make sure Z received suitable education. The Council should apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment to her to remedy the injustice caused.

Mr Y complained on behalf of Ms X about the Council’s handling of her homeless application after she received notice to leave a private tenancy. Particularly, that the Council told Ms X to stay in the property until the court issued a bailiff warrant. Mr Y says Ms X experienced avoidable financial loss and distress.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and did not consider her request for a suitability review. The Council was at fault for its failure to treat Miss B’s contact as a trigger for a new suitability decision to be made; and for its delay in actioning Miss B’s change of circumstances and new medical information. Because of the fault, Miss B suffered distress and frustration, and she remained living in unsuitable accommodation with her young children for longer than they should have. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, make a symbolic

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the homelessness legislation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax account. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X can appeal regarding a council tax discount.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaint about her son’s education because Ms M has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the same matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to maintain the boundary between his property and a park. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome, the courts are better placed to determine if the Council is liable for compensation for Mr X’s injury and part of Mr X’s complaint is made late.

Summary: The Council acknowledged serious failings concerning Mr F’s son’s education, health and care (EHC) plan following Mr F’s first complaint. It is too late for us to look into these matters now. The Council acknowledged further failings updating the Plan following Mr F’s second complaint. The Council has apologised and offered a suitable symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Freedom Pass. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question if the decision was right or wrong.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not consider all relevant information in her homelessness application, delayed providing her with suitable accommodation and communicated with her poorly. She says this caused her to be homeless. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making in assessing Miss X’s homelessness application and suitability of accommodation it provided. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council’s communication, which caused Miss X limited injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation under its homelessness Relief duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.