LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application for free home-to-school transport for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Miss X’s child, Y. It was also at fault for poorly communicating with Miss X. The Council has already apologised to Miss X for some of the fault. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X a further apology for the delay in completing the assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan. The Council will also make Miss X a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the matter caused her as well as for the provis

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about support for rehousing because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to issue the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan within the statutory timescale, and failed to make alternative provision for him while he was out of school. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: Miss X complained that her child, Y, did not receive the provision in Section F of their Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council. Y did not receive all the provision for over 3 terms and the Council did not respond to Miss X’s concerns about this. There was also delay in carrying out an annual review and a failure to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan after a previous annual review. An apology, symbolic payment and service improvement remedies the injustice from the loss of education.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council permitting the unauthorised removal of about 200 trees from land next to her property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Even if Mrs X’s complaint had not been late, we would not have investigated because there is not enough evidence of Council fault to have warranted investigation and we could not have achieved the outcome she seeks.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing register and homelessness applications. We have found fault, causing injustice by the Council, in its: delay and failures assessing Miss Y’s homelessness application and its homelessness duties; failure to provide her with suitable interim accommodation; and failure to provide clear information about its procedure for direct let offers. We have also found fault by the Council in failing to keep proper records of a prevention duty decision, which did not cause injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about whether the complainant can remain in the family home. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about a council when it is acting as a landlord. We will not investigate the complaint about the bidding process for a new home because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Education – Special educational needs (SEN) assessments and reviews The Council took more than 72 weeks to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mr X's child, Y. It should have completed this in 20 weeks. As a result, Mr X was caused uncertainty about whether Y could have started at their preferred school a year sooner if not for the fault. The family have also been caused a prolonged period of frustration. The Council’s lack of educational psychologists has already significantly delayed many families in obtaining EHC Plans. However, once the Council receives the educational psych

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to refuse the complainant’s appeal against the type of home to school transport awarded for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Councils said he was not eligible for a supported housing development. We have found fault in the way the Council assessed Mr B’s needs, the failure to properly record the eligibility criteria for the housing development and the Council’s communications about the criteria. The Council has already provided a financial remedy for the distress caused to Mr B by the fault and has amended the eligibility criteria. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mr B and to carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to repair a wall in a cemetery and the conduct of an employee. We consider an investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Also, the part of the complaint about historical matters is made too late.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how staff at a leisure facility dealt with her concerns. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and there is insufficient personal injustice to Ms X to warrant our involvement. Additionally, we cannot achieve Ms X’s desired outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice on the complainant’s planning application and its refusal to refund the fee. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate education to her two adopted children. The Council has already investigated the complaints and upheld them. We endorse the Council’s findings of fault which has caused avoidable distress and a loss of education for the children. The Council has accepted our recommendation for an improved personal remedy for the loss of education and avoidable distress. The Council has also agreed to review its alternative education policy. We are therefore closing the complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about vehicle noise because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the use of a light at a Council social housing property as it is not within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pursue enforcement action and the time it took to investigate. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure planning controls were met between 2015 and 2022. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Ms X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant’s daughter 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 Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s involvement with her child, including the content of court reports. The law prevents us from investigating anything that could be reasonably raised in court proceedings.