LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for information. This is because the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his risk and about a lack of contact with his children. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her transport application, and for awarding a personal transport budget. She said this was not suitable to arrange private taxis and she has had to transport her child to school, causing significant difficulties to the family. We found the Council at fault for its communication and the way it provided a personal transport budget. The Council has now agreed to arrange home to school transport for her child. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the remaining injustice, and take action to prevent recurre

Summary: Mrs M complains about further delay by the Council arranging overnight respite away from home for her children. We previously considered Mrs M’s complaint in July 2024 when the Council said it hoped to arrange respite by September 2024. Overnight respite began in April 2025. We have recommended a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to escalate Mrs X’s complaint about a failure to arrange payments for support workers properly. Doing so would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s daughter’s permanent exclusion from a school and her subsequent placement at a Pupil Referral Unit. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take into account information in relation to the planning application. Mrs X says this has caused her distress due to the impact on the nearby infrastructure. I have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

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

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his care, resulting in it charging him more than he can afford to pay. The Council failed to explain why it accepted some of his car expenses as disability related expenditure but not others. The council needs to apologise and reconsider its decisions, providing reasons for them.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has offered and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax support and liability. This is because he had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect him to have used it.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in its decision to refuse to reassess her son, Y’s, special educational needs, and delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We found fault on the part of the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Y in the form of distress and delayed access to suitable educational provision. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking problems and penalty charge notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the complainant could have used her appeal rights, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed this to the independent tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her late mother’s care home fees because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide post-16 transport to college for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils poor communication and failure to meet key timescales for Y to transfer onto the next school. We find the Council at fault for failing to keep Mrs X updated about Y’s education and placement. This caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) process for the complainant’s child. If Mrs X is unhappy with the EHC Plan it is reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council’s complaint response or achieve a different outcome. The delay by the Council in issuing a final EHC Plan is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and we will not look at complaint handling in isolation.

Summary: Miss B complains about the care provided to her grandmother at a care home. She says there was poor hygiene, there were inaccurate records, her grandmother’s nutritional needs were not met and the Home did not fully respond to her complaint. We have found that there was poor record keeping in certain areas, there was an incident of poor hygiene in the room and the Home did not address all the complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a small financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way a Council-funded care home assessed his mother’s (Mrs X) dependency levels. We have found fault with the Council (as the responsible body) for not ensuring the dependency scores reflected Mrs X’s circumstances. This caused Mr X to pay higher top-up fees and caused avoidable distress. We have recommended the Council apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining the complainant’s application and appeals for school transport assistance for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees for a temporary care home stay in 2022. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an alleged misuse of public funds and the Council’s investigation into his report of fraud. We cannot investigate matters which affect all or most of the people in a council area and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has investigated his concerns.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed taking action to ensure her neighbour’s property was safe. We find the Council at fault for failing to communicate with Ms X about these delays. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty this caused.