LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her child (Y’s) Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. This in turn caused a delay in issuing the EHC Plan. The Council was at fault as it failed to issue Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of information the Council provided to his child’s school. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking action regarding his complaint of a rat infestation in and around his property. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused his family avoidable anxiety and distress and led to him moving address. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Mr X with an apology and a financial remedy in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about some trees because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council acted with fault in intervening to deny the complainant’s request for flexi-schooling for his son. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision to issue a fixed penalty notice for his child’s unauthorised absence from school. The authority to issue the notice belongs to a school’s headteacher and the Council’s role is only ancillary to that. We have no powers to investigate the actions of a school and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate his complaint about a town council employee. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

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 the Council did not properly assess whether the complainant is in ‘priority need’ and owed a duty to be given accommodation. This is because the complainant has yet to have the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need reviewed under the review procedure. The Council was at fault by dealing with the complainant’s disagreement to the decision under its complaints procedure. The Council has accepted our invitation to offer the complainant with a fresh right of review, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council had placed her family in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation. Based on current evidence I have upheld the complaint and the Council has agreed to pay financial redress to Ms D to recognise the time her family had to spend in unsuitable accommodation.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Mr X and paying him a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and 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: Mrs X complained about the changes the Council made to move its short breaks booking scheme online as there were no activities available for young adults over 18 with an Education, Health and Care Plan, like her son. This meant she could not use her allocated vouchers and had to privately fund activities for her son. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise, reimburse Mrs X for activities privately paid for, and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her late mother Mrs Y being assaulted in a care home commissioned by the Council, and the Council not allowing Mrs Y to live with her. Investigation by us could not add to the one already conducted nor result in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s invoices for her mother’s care charges are wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for care and a deprivation of assets decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council provided unsuitable accommodation after she fled domestic abuse. That is because this complaint has not exhausted the Council’s complaint procedure and is late. We will also not investigate her complaint about rent charges for her temporary accommodation. The Council amended the tenancy date and agreed to review the charges. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of new parking restrictions on his road. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and the Council has offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its duty to provide the complainant with housing and seek her eviction from temporary accommodation. This is because the issued raised have been subject to legal proceedings in county court. We have not legal jurisdiction to investigate complaints in these circumstances.

Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her child who was a looked after child. We found the Council took too long to respond to her complaint but its apology and offer of £550 is an adequate way of putting matters right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response or consideration of a claim of liability, for damage to a boundary wall. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s decision on the placement it would name in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has already appealed the Council’s decision, and the law does not allow us to investigate here. Nor will we investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in issuing the plan, because there is no significant injustice, and the Council has apologised for delays here.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrongly charging Mrs X for care fees. He says this impacts his emotional wellbeing and causes her financial stress. We find no fault with the Council charging care fees. However, we have found fault with its handling of the complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax because it is reasonable for Miss Y to approach the Valuation Tribunal to challenge her liability for council tax.