LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide support for her disabled child. Miss X said this impacted her mental and physical health. She said she was promised support and did not get it. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because the Council will address this complaint through the statutory complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and the decision not to assess Y for an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has apologised for the poor communication and acted to improve its service. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more. She had a right of appeal to a tribunal about the decisions not to assess Y for an Education, Health and Care plan in 2023 and 2024.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. Mr X could reasonably go, or have gone, to the Valuation Tribunal on some points. We cannot investigate court action the Council took. Some points are late without good reason to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault on other points. Mr X could reasonably take court action on some points. We cannot achieve the decisions on council tax liability or the compensation Mr X wants.

Summary: Ms X’s complaint relates to issues concerning the statutory complaints process, and alleged flawed investigations undertaken at Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the process. We have discontinued our investigation. The complaint has previously been subject to a detailed independent investigation and review, and further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or lead to a significantly different or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has been at fault in addressing the complainant’s son’s special education needs. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An appeal remains the best option for Mr X to achieve his desired outcome. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not give Mr X what he wants.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to complete work to his home under a disabled facilities grant. The Council was at fault for withdrawing the offer to carry out the work in two stages to minimise the disruption to Mr X. It needs to reconsider that decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a charity and about information the Council gave to him about the Household Support Fund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s school transport policy, allegations of sub-contracting, and issues with the taxi-driver leaving her child unsupervised and leaving her before she was received into the care of an adult. We consider further investigation will not add to that carried out by the Council. Nor would it lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s personal data. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s (X) Education, Health, and Care needs assessment and the provision she received when she was unable to attend her school placement. The Council apologised to Ms C for its failure to provide X with alternative provision for a five-month period and made payment to remedy the injustice it caused. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate, and there was either no fault on other matters complained about, or we could not consider these as Ms C exercised her appeal rights to a tribunal about the same or linked matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a faulty Traffic Regulation Order and a Penalty Charge Notice the Council issued which resulted in bailiff action. This is because the Council has offered a fair remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child protection and child in need matters relating to his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has upheld most of his complaints, apologised and offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused. We could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr X wants.

Summary: Ms F complains the Council did not properly deal with her request for a personal budget to deliver some of her son’s SEN provision in May 2022. We have ended our investigation. This is because Ms F used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which puts it out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for his son, who has special educational needs. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his subject access request. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. This complaint is best dealt with by another agency.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of a Council employee outside of her work. This is because the complaint is not about an administrative function of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Miss X’s child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of parking at a housing development by its housing services. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of its estates by a social housing landlord.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to give her direct payments to pay her partner to provide her social care at home. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it would not agree to the direct payments. However, the Council was at fault for delay in creating and issuing Mrs X’s care and support plan. This caused her avoidable frustration for which the Council will apologise.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her home to school transport appeals for her son (Y). We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision. But we find it failed to provide a copy of its shortest walking route and sufficiently detailed outcome letters to Mrs X which caused her avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress about the Council’s decision making. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and provide a staff reminder to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about Service J, which acted on the Council’s behalf. Ms X said Service J carried out a flawed assessment of Child Y, providing unsound advice about his needs. Ms X complained the Council relied on this unsound advice when deciding what provision it should put in place for Child Y. Ms X said Service J’s policy sought to restrict Child Y from accessing assistive equipment and was discriminatory. Ms X also complained about Service J’s conduct during an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the Council’s complaint handling. We have ended our investigation of Ms X’s complaint. C

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s refusal to provide suitable school transport for her daughter since September 2023. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council acted without transparency and proportionality in pursuing council tax arrears, and breached the Equality Act. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consult with her about her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Ms X has appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints process because we cannot investigate the substantive complaint, and therefore an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome.