LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a home to school transport application. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council carried out its trading standards investigation. The issues raised are subject to court action. We have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a school placement. This is because there was a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her son’s education because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We could not add to the Council’s response, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint who says his neighbour is a risk to his and the neighbour’s children and that the Council has failed to safeguard them. Mr X’s complaint is made late and there is no good reason to consider it now. Mr X is also an unsuitable representative for his neighbour’s children.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement as a flood risk consultee on a planning application she made to a different authority.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out mental capacity assessments for his sister. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly decide whether to prosecute a trader she complained about. We found the Council was at fault as it did not keep records showing how it decided not to prosecute the trader. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and ensure it keeps records of its decision making in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking issue as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s publication of a report on flooding following a storm in Mr X’s area in 2024. The courts are better placed to consider whether the report was negligent in the way the data was reported.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about closure of a footpath and a lack of signage on a bridleway. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and there is insufficient injustice claimed to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Education, Health and Care planning for a child. Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal about the content of the Plan so we cannot investigate this. We will not investigate the Council’s response to his request for a re-assessment of the child’s needs. The Council has upheld his complaint, provided a suitable remedy and acted to improve its service. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat gifts made to him and other family from his mother Mrs Y’s trust as a deprivation of her assets to pay for her care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection actions. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. It is also likely that at least some of the complaint concerns matters that were or could reasonably have been mentioned during court proceedings. We will not investigate those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council providing incorrect information about her son’s care costs. She says the Council told her he would not need to contribute anything. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her concerns about the Council commissioned care delivered to her mother in-law, Mrs Y. There was some fault with the care however, the Care Provider took appropriate action to prevent a recurrence of fault. There was no fault with how the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove free transport for new starters at a school which Mrs X’s child attends. However, Mrs X’s child already receives free transport and will continue to receive it until they finish the education phase, move house or move schools. Mrs X says paying for transport for her second child will be a financial burden. However they are not due to start the school for another three years. Therefore we do not consider Mrs X has suffered sufficient injustice currently to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed in assessing his family’s need for an extra bedroom for their disabled child. He also complained the assessment did not result in it supporting an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to create an extra bedroom. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council at fault for delay and not sufficiently considering the impact of its proposal that Mr B should use a reception room as a bedroom instead. This caused injustice to Mr B as distress. We also found fault with a procedure the Council currently has in place with Mr B’s local housing autho

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to ensure his child (Y) received the specialist provision set out in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to ensure Occupational Therapy (OT) was in place from September 2024 to date. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y’s needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise this.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s role in supporting her late mother Mrs Y to move from a care home to live with her in another council’s area. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delay. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration and distress she was caused and pay some of the care fees for the extra weeks Mrs Y remained in the care home due to the Council’s delays and poor communication.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Mrs X as their son’s financial appointee. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Councils refusal to install a bath in her property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now. We will not investigate any complaint about the recent re-assessments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s transfer to a post-16 educational placement. This is because there is either not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of any fault causing significant injustice, and Mr X, the complainant, has also used his appeal rights to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council has refused to pay her compensation for injuries she suffered. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.