LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address the complainant’s son’s special educational needs and has failed to make alternative educational provision for him. Her complaint about the period before her son’s Education Health and Care Plan was issued is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now. Her appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places subsequent matters outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Mr X’s concerns about his late father’s care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because the Council has agreed to reconsider the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with reports of breaches of working hours and noise. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s crazy paving. This is because t

Summary: We cannot investigate whether Mr K’s current care plan meets his needs because this is part of court proceedings. There was no fault when the Council refused to reassess Mr K’s care, or how it responded to his mother’s concerns about his care and finances. The Council also properly considered whether Mr K’s mother has support needs as a carer and has explained its conclusions to her.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to ensure her son, Mr Y, received suitable education or support for his special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused Mr Y to miss special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for Mr Y and Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and properly consider Miss X’s request for a Personal Budget for Mr Y’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council will also issue reminders to staff in its special educational needs service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Ms X’s child, who is a looked after child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determining Mr X’s planning application and its refusal of it. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to his use of appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Council had already accepted it was at fault for not allowing Miss X to join the choice-based lettings scheme and for wrongly deciding she was intentionally homeless. We also found the Council at fault for failing to update records promptly. However, we did not find the Council at fault for its response to reports about disrepair. But we found there is remaining injustice caused by the Council’s fault, in the form of distress, lost opportunity, and uncertainty, which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s charging for extra care housing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision because it is a matter for the courts and there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about care charges sought by the Council from the late Mrs Y’s estate, nor its handling of and responses to her complaint. The charging complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council disclosing the complainant’s personal information to a third party. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: There was a two-month delay in issuing Y’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan which caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make Ms X a symbolic payment of £150.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay completing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We find fault, causing injustice to Y and avoidable distress and uncertainty to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her son’s annual Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan review. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its actions. We cannot look at whether any faults wrongly affected the outcome of the review as Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the revised EHC Plan.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because she appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. And we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council provided via its complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a planning application for new houses behind the complainant’s home. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Summary: There is evidence of some fault by the Council in this complaint. There was a delay in allocating a social worker to Mrs Y and a failure to chase up a mental health referral after she went into emergency respite care.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her children being removed from her care and placed for adoption because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed when reviewing her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and within its Personal Budget process. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s failure to ensure delivery of Y’s special educational provision. We cannot investigate some of the issues which have already been considered by us and the issues linked to Mrs X’s appeal. The Council has already accepted its fault within its Personal Budget process and when communicating with Mrs X but it has failed to offer suitable remedies. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment for Mrs X