LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed updating her daughter’s special educational needs support. We have found that the Council was at fault. It took more than two years longer than it should have done to update the support. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice to her and her daughter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her child. Mrs X has not been caused an injustice significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman investigating. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal if she wants to challenge the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the provision set out in Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to review the plan within statutory time limits. We find the Council at fault for not securing all the provision and for delays in completing a review of the plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. This is because the matter is out of time and there are no good reasons why we should exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure all the special educational need provision in Miss X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused him to miss out on the support he needed which affected his behaviour and attendance at school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to remedy Miss X’s and her son’s injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the charges made by the Council for her mothers care home place. There was fault. The Council took too long to resolve a situation in which the care home was paid twice. It has now reached an agreement to get a refund from the care home and cancel the invoices to Mrs M. To remedy the distress and inconvenience Mrs M was put to and to remedy the Council’s poor communication the Council apologised and made a payment to Mrs X. There was no fault in the Council’s decision there was no reablement care. Or its decision that Mrs M should contribute financially during t

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting her son, Mr G’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when it was transferred from another Council’s area in July 2022 and failed to provide any educational provision in the Plan. The Council was at fault. It also failed to provide Ms X and Mr G with relevant appeal rights in relation to Mr G’s EHC Plan. The Council will apologise to Mr G and Ms X for the avoidable frustration they were caused, pay Mr G £7,200 for the two years of specialist provision he missed, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The review should have been completed by 24 November 2024 but the final plan was not issued until July 2025, after Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. This delay is fault and has caused Miss X and her son distress and frustrated her appeal rights. A symbolic payment to recognise this is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an increase in the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment after a tribunal ordered it to complete one in October 2023. Ms X also complained it delayed issuing the final EHC Plan for her child, Z, until July 2024, and did not provide an appropriate education in the interim. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and make payments to Ms X to recognise the avoidable frustration she was caused and the specialist educational provision and alternative provision Z missed out on.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless as she had the right to appeal to the county court. We also will not investigate the Council’s refusal to accept a new homelessness application from her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not review her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance and failed to identify a new school placement when Y’s school said it could no longer meet their needs in 2023. The Council was at fault. Y missed out on some of their specialist educational provision for three terms which caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make payments to remedy the injustice and issue its decision following an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in December 2024 without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue an improvement notice. Mr X had the right to appeal to the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal, and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review her child’s education, health and care plan, failed to provide an education for her child, and communicated poorly with her. She said it caused her distress and frustration, and her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Miss X says the Council’s involvement with her children adversely affected her relationships with her children and ex- partner. We will not investigate because part of the Council’s involvement was considered in court and the law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings. Further, we would not be able to link Miss X’s claimed injustice to any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan and it failed to provide her with an education when she was unable to attend school. We found the Council at fault for delays in finalising the EHC Plan and arranging a suitable education. The faults caused a loss of education and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising in writing and providing a payment to the family.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to issue an amended Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timeframe, failure to provide support for her son’s (Y) special educational needs as well as poor communication and complaint handling. We found the Council to be at fault. This caused distress, frustration and had an impact on Y’s development. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss X and ensure delivery of missed provision.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to finalise the annual review of her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also says Y has not been receiving education. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in finalising the annual review process of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to provide Y with appropriate education. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X with an apology and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council poorly resurfaced the highway outside her property. This is because this complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving children he is related to. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s liability for council tax. The Council has since exempt Miss X for one period and the remaining period in dispute is outside of our jurisdiction. Therefore, investigation by us would not achieve anything worthwhile.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council made its decision to grant planning permission to a house near his property, its response to out-of-hours noisy construction work, and it not replying to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process or response to the noise issue to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeal procedure and she could have challenged the review by appealing to the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint that his property was damaged due to the action of the Council’s waste contractor. This is because it is reasonable for Mr Z to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.