LGO Individual Decisions

Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) for an extension to his property. As a result, Mr X and his family have lived in overcrowded accommodation for longer than necessary which has had a significant impact on his children due to their needs.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about failure to secure suitable education and special educational needs provision as set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X started legal action against the Council about the same issues.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr B because he has already begun court action against the Council to remedy the same injustice from the same Council actions, so we have no power to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s social worker was at fault in making a safeguarding referral. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child, Y. It also failed to secure the Occupational Therapy (OT) provision in the Plan and make direct payments for Y’s tuition. This was fault and caused Ms X frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay all outstanding direct payments, review why it has repeatedly failed to make the payments and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of its failings.

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to arrange any educational provision for Ms X’s child Y, who is a young adult, from September 2024 to January 2025, and it poorly communicated and handled her complaint. The Council apologised and offered to make a payment of £1600 to recognise the injustice caused from the loss of education and its poor communication and complaint handling. It also proposed to carry out service improvements to prevent recurrence of the faults. The Council’s proposed actions are an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure suitable education for her daughter (B) when she was out of school. We found fault in the way the Council discharged its Section 19 duty towards B. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X as she paid for some provision for B and was distressed at the lack of the Council’s support. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to refund Miss X’s cost of arranging educational provision for B between March and June 2024 and to recognise her distress. In recent complaints we have recommended relevant service improvemen

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his case and did not investigate his complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide his child with full-time education and failed to issue their Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delays in the Education, Health and Care process, and failing to ensure Y received appropriate alternative provision, causing loss of education and avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and improve its services.

Summary: Ms X complained about the priority the Council gave her on its social housing register. There was fault at some stages of the decision-making process, but this did not affect the final outcome or cause Ms X any injustice. The Council should issue reminders to relevant staff and review how it identifies and manages possible conflicts of interest, to prevent similar fault in future.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to investigate her complaints properly. We have decided to discontinue our investigation because the Council has agreed to investigate Miss X’s concerns about the contents of a Court report prepared by the Council. I am therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to her child’s social care. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider her concerns about record keeping.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residential care arrangements for Mr X’s wife, or how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. We cannot investigate the substantive issue, because Mr X cannot bring that complaint to us. And of the safeguarding matters there is no evidence of fault and no significant injustice. In any case we cannot achieve the outcome that Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D received suitable alternative education when they were out of school. The Council was not at fault in how it considered its duty to provide alternative education to D. However, it accepted it delayed in reviewing D’s Education, Health, and Care Plan, and responding to Mrs X’s complaint, which caused her distress, time, and trouble. The Council apologised and offered a financial remedy. Following our investigation, it agreed to go further to remedy the injustice caused, by paying an increased financial remedy. It will also repor

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failures the Council in dealing with Miss X when undertaking child protection work. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. The Information Commissioner is also better placed than us to consider alleged data protection issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter and the courts are better placed.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council keeping Mr X’s grandchild in care. This is because the child’s residency was decided by a court. Any breach of a court order or request to change the child’s residency could only be decided by a court. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X or a member of his family to go to court to seek re-unification with the child.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Ms Y. Ms Y complained the Council delayed her son, Z’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review process. She also complained Z has not received suitable education or plan provision and communication from the Council was poor. Ms Y said Z missed education and plan provision and this caused her distress, frustration and she has been impacted financially. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Z received education and provision, delayed issuing the final EHC Plan and communication from the Council was poor. Z missed education and p

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly charged his father for the costs of his care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s historic complaint that the Council was complicit with child abuse when he was a child in its care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure suitable education for her son (A) when he was out of school. We found fault in the way the Council discharged its Section 19 duty towards A and in its complaint handling. The Council’s fault caused injustice to A as he missed education and to Miss X as she was distressed at the lack of support for A. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Miss X to recognise A’s loss of education and her distress. In recent complaints we have recommended relevant service improvements, which we will monitor.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs C’s needs for care and support. This meant that it is not certain what the outcome of the assessment would have been if the fault had not happened. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to ensure her child, Y received an education or provision in line with their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan since 2021 when they stopped attending school. I ended this investigation because part of the complaint is late and the other part falls outside of our jurisdiction because Ms X appealed to the SEND tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incorrectly addressed Council Tax bill. This is because the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and responded to it, and we would not be able to add to the Council’s response. Additionally, there is another body better placed to consider parts of Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to attend a mediation meeting, and its subsequent refusal to reimburse the complainant for costs she incurred as a result. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.