LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint. We do not consider it a good use of public resources to consider complaints about complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue..

Summary: Ms X complained about a failure to complete a s117 aftercare plan before she left hospital or after she returned home. We found fault that a council and an NHS trust did not complete a s117 aftercare plan. This caused Ms X stress and frustration which is an injustice. Further, we found fault in the way the Trust handled Ms X’s complaint which caused more injustice. The council and NHS trust agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make financial payments to address the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed naming a school in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to have appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of obstructive parking in her road. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what she wants. If Ms X considers the Council’s position to be unlawful, this is better considered by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance, particularly blocked gullies. The complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault, and it is reasonable to expect him to use the alternative court remedy to address his highway maintenance concerns.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council’s social workers in 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s offers of temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty in 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to name a suitable educational placement in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with the educational provision it agreed to. I ended this investigation because Mrs X has appealed to the SEND tribunal and the substantive complaints are not separable from the matters at appeal. The remaining matter has not been through the Council’s complaints process.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for Y, delays in securing educational provision for Y, and delays in reimbursing her for the costs of therapies she funded herself. We find the Council at fault, causing frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver appropriate education and specialist services to her daughter, Y, and did not review her Education, Health and Care Plan in statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for a lack of appropriate provision and not reviewing Y’s plan within the correct timeframe. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and meant her daughter did not receive education she was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to act after Mrs X notified the Council that her child, Y, was not receiving a suitable education at home between January 2024 and May 2025. The Council was also at fault as it failed to issue Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Y’s missed education.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a direct payment. We are unlikely to achieve an outcome which would justify an investigation into the fault complained of.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council unfairly refused her application for a disabled parking badge. We have found that the Council was not at fault, because its approach to Mrs X’s application was neither unreasonable nor obviously at odds with the government’s best practice guidance. This means we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to refuse the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue an Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory time frame. She says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan 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 will not investigate this complaint about the Council reducing Ms X’s priority for social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate the complainant’s child’s special educational needs provision. This is because the complainant used her right to appeal to the

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mr Y complained about how the Council reviewed his mother, Mrs X’s, care and support needs. There were some delays in reviews of Mrs X’s care needs and the Council communicated with Mr Y poorly at times. This caused Mr Y some avoidable frustration for which the Council agreed to apologise. The Council also agreed issue a reminder to its staff about the need for clear communication.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the way the Council charged for the domestic care services delivered to his father-in-law, Mr X. We found fault in the way the Council charged Mr X. The Council failed to provide information on its charging and to send documents following Mr X’s care needs assessment. The Council also significantly delayed Mr X’s financial assessment. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X as he was not aware he would be charged for his care and how much he would need to pay. The Council has agreed to apologise and waive some of Mr X’s care charges. It has also agreed to ca

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a different outcome for Miss X and it was reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Some other matters need to be considered by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s system for reporting highway maintenance issues. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.