LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development next to the complainant’s property. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning outcome.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms X’s grandchild, Y. It also delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X. The Council was not at fault for not arranging alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. The Council was entitled to allow the school to try and reintegrate Y. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about Y’s education from September 2024 as Ms X had appealed to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal and the matters are linked.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council made, and communicated, its decision to change refuse collection arrangements for his home. We found fault in how it communicated its decision. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and confusion caused to him. We did not find evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or its decision not to provide alternative provision. This is because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s business rates. This is mainly because investigation would be unlikely to find fault on the central point.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council carried out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for his child. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and many of the issues raised are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about development plans. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints from public bodies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cease to maintain an Education Health and Care plan and thereby end funding for an educational placement. The complainant has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing his EHC plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide Z with suitable alternative education provision, in line with its section 19 duty, and failed to communicate effectively. We have found the Council acted with fault. This caused Z an injustice in the form of missed education provision. This also caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology. The Council has also agreed to pay financial remedies to recogni

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing P’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing her EHC plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide P with suitable alternative education provision, in line with its section 19 duty, and failed to communicate effectively. We have found the Council acted with fault. This caused P an injustice in the form of missed education provision. This also caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology. The Council has also agreed to pay financial remedies to recogni

Summary: The Council delayed taking the action it said it would at mediation to resolve a dispute with Ms X about her child’s education. This was fault. This fault caused Ms X frustration and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £200 and take action to prevent recurrence of this fault in future. However we have not investigated the suitability of the education Ms X’s child received, because this issue carried a right of appeal to a tribunal which it was reasonable for Ms X to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about money Mrs X says was stolen from her uncle, Mr X, by a carer. The courts are best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the safeguarding actions of the Council. It found a safeguarding allegation against Mrs X to be unsubstantiated, so it was not responsible for her dismissal from work. We are legally prevented from investigating the actions of her former employer.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s conduct during the SEND Tribunal’s process. This is because the law says we cannot investigate matters which the SEND Tribunal can address using its own powers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the provision in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal and then a court considered the matter at Judicial Review.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about fault in the Council’s implementation of its home to school transport policy. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Ms X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to properly consider the concerns she raised about the care and support her late mother received and the suitability of the care home placements commissioned by the Council. We find the Council consulted Miss Y and listened to her concerns. However, the Council did not relay the outcome of one safeguarding concern. It has already made a service improvement for this and we do not recommend anything further.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to consider implementing alternative educational provision when it became aware that Mrs X’s child, Y was not attending school in February 2024. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure the review of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was held within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters arising from the Council’s handling of a planning application. It would be reasonable for the complainant to use relevant rights of appeal and court remedies, and to take information complaints to the Information Commissioner who is better placed to consider them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make educational and special educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters about which the complainant appealed, or could have appealed, to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the accepted fault did not cause significant injustice. In addition, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The Council failed to arrange key special educational needs provision for Ms X’s relative, Ms G for more than two terms. This included language tuition and speech and language therapy. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms X properly, failed to review Ms G’s EHC Plan and significantly delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint. In recognition of the missed provision, frustration and uncertainty caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Ms G £1,450 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a planning application to warrant our involvement. Also, the Council has apologised for the delay in uploading information to its website and further investigation of this point will not lead to a different outcome. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a care home. The injustice to the complainant is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome they want. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider access to information.