LGO Individual Decisions

about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not providing accommodation to her when she successfully challenged its decision that she was not in priority need. This is because the Council agreed to resolve this aspect of the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for Miss X’s injustice. We will not investigate the Council’s further decision that Miss X was not in priority need. Miss X had the right to seek a review and then appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision, and it was reasonable to expect her to do so.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council delayed responding to her complaint and considered the complaint under the incorrect procedure. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her son, B, is not receiving the special educational provision in his education, health and care (EHC) plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to identify a special school for his son when he moved into the area and failed to put in place enough hours of alternative provision while it looked for a school place. The Council began a prompt search for a school for Mr B’s son but only put limited education in place for him. That meant Mr B’s son missed out on education provision. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to secure the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to organise alternative education for Y between September 2023 and January 2025. This is because Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council caused a delay in deciding her daughter’s special educational needs support. We have found that the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of nearly six months. This likely meant Miss X’s daughter missed out on some of the support she needed. Miss X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress. The Council has agreed take action to address their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the overcrowding of his driveway due to a refuse bin provided by the Council. This is because the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now and the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his claim for damages after his car hit a pothole. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of contact between her, her family and her grandchild. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her subject access request. This is because the complaint is about a data matter which is best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed arranging education for her son after his school placement ended, and wrongly took recovery action against her when some of the money for her son’s care went missing. We cannot comment on Mrs X’s liability for the missing money, as this may well be dealt with in court. But we have found that the Council was otherwise at fault. It delayed arranging education for Mrs X’s son and caused delays in its recovery of the missing money. It has now agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her son.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not taking enough action to control the growth of highway trees and their alleged effect on the complainant’s home and a nearby footway. We have no power to investigate a decision when there is not enough evidence it was affected by procedural fault, and we could not achieve more than the Council has already done or offered. It would also be reasonable for the complainant to take any unresolved dispute about the Council’s common law duties or evidence about the effect of the trees to court as they are not matters of administrati

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council named an inappropriate school in the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan, and failed to update its admissions system. The complaint concerns a matter about which the complainant could have appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of the pre-planning application advice given to Mr X by the Council. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his planning application. All matters relating to the planning application are outside our jurisdiction. This is because he has already appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to respond to his enquiries about a dangerous stretch of road near his property. We found the Council failed to respond to his enquiries on several occasions causing frustration and possible delay to the speed reduction. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay him £100 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Miss D complained the Council mishandled her homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council. It delayed progressing the case, gave contradictory information to Miss D and failed to fully respond to the formal complaint. The Council accepts it is at fault, is making service improvements and offers redress to Miss D.

Summary: We found no fault on most of Ms Y’s complaints against the Council about when it removed two sets of foster children from her care. The investigation of the allegations against her was done in line with procedures, there was no fault with the decisions to remove the children, and it was entitled to hold an early household review of her fostering status which was done without fault. It accepted it failed to send her confirmation of a variation to her terms of approval as a carer and failed to ensure she received all the supervision she should have done. These failures were fault and ca

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests for information about her son’s educational provision. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an assessment produced by the Council’s children’s services. This is because the assessment has been considered in court.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her daughter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to meet statutory deadlines during the assessment. This has caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority the Council awarded to a housing register application. We have upheld parts of the complaint, and the Council has agreed to take appropriate action. It would therefore not be proportionate to investigate.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.