LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council delayed informing Mr D of the outcome of his financial assessment and delayed sending him an invoice. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, cancel the invoice and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission because there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a conduct complaint about a parish councillor as we can achieve no meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to investigate his report of statutory noise nuisance in summer 2023 because the complaint is late. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following its refusal to amend an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Other issues raised have not caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a failure to provide a suitable education and delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council has already offered. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a data protection complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council is failing to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter while she is not attending school. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We have upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in the Council reimbursing care charges to their adult son, Mr Z. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Y’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) and has suffered distress and loss of educational opportunity. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it did not ensure all Y’s SEN provision was made. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and Y missed SEN provision. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and Y and pay Mrs X £3,000.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council charging for recovery action in the court for council tax arrears. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failures relating to council tax billing for a property he owns and rents to tenants. He says the Council failed to update its records and act on the information he provided. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in updating its records and acting on the information Mr X provided. This caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to pay Mr X £100 to address his injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y with an education in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between May 2024 and January 2025 after Y was permanently excluded from school. She also complained about a delay in holding an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with any education while they were out of school and has delayed holding the annual review, to date, by four months. The Council agreed to make payments to recognise Y’s loss of education and for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. It wil

Summary: Miss E complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education to her daughter for two years. The school did not follow her Education, Health and Care Plan. It delayed finalising a review of the Plan, was poor in its communications and did not provide any alternative education for times her daughter was not able to attend school. We uphold the complaint because of delay, poor communications and some lack of alternative provision. These faults have caused Miss E and her daughter distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to my recommended remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in completing a court ordered assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling following a safeguarding referral about his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings and could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond appropriately to an incident in which the complainant’s son’s wheelchair suffered damage. This is because the complaint concerns liability for damage to property. The complainant may pursue the matter in court and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its decision to grant planning permission for a nearby property and officers missing off planning conditions from the decision notice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process to warrant us investigating. The Council’s decision notice fault does not cause significant personal injustice to Mr X justifying an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed assess his disability related expenditure properly when calculating his contribution towards his care costs. On the evidence available we have found fault in how the Council considered some of Mr X’s disability related expenditure. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X and review its decision on some of his disability related expenditure. It should also backdate disability related expenditure for the support Mr X needs to attend social and religious events, from the date of his financial assessment until the end of January 2025.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and a refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a tribunal appeal, or about the education and special educational needs provision provided by the Council. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters subject to appeals to a tribunal, and investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Social Worker allocated to her child’s case. The law prevents us from investigating anything that forms part of court proceedings, including information and reports produced for the court. We would expect Ms X to raise any concerns about these issues in court.