LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to protect Miss X’s grandchildren from harm. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s introduction of a restricted turn junction on a road near where he lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs 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: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that a crash barrier is not required at a site Mr X says is unsafe. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now at least two years after Mr X first became aware of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided to us by the Council in relation to Mrs X’s previous complaint. This is because we cannot determine whether the information was libellous/defamatory, and if Mrs X believed it affected our decision she should have requested a review.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council carried out a review of a child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her son Y’s education properly, causing loss of education. The Council took too long to issue Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and to provide a school placement. Miss X suffered delay to appeal rights, avoidable distress and Y lost education opportunity and special educational needs provision. The Council should pay Miss X £300 for avoidable distress and £5,500 for loss of education and special educational needs provision.

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to a concern she raised about her child. This is because they have already been considered in Court proceedings or Ms X could have raised them in Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainants concerns about street lighting, anti-social behaviour and lack of taxi access in the town centre near his home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council reviewed and amended his Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault in how the Council failed to properly review Mr X’s plan between 2018 and 2022 and delayed amending his plan in preparation for his transfer to post-16 education. This caused Mr X to miss out on over a year of education and caused both him and his family members avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, and pay Mr X, his brother and mother financial remedies.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child received suitable education, at a suitable school placement, or the provision detailed in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained the Council delayed reviewing and finalising her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council delaying for 10 months outside the timescales in reviewing Miss X’s child’s EHC Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to suitability consider its Section 19 duty, resulting in a loss of suitable education for Miss X’s child, for two full ter

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to look into his concerns or assess his children. Some issues are closely related to court proceedings, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to handle the data issue .

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information about children changing for PE in primary schools being passed on by the Council. What happens is an internal matter for schools to decide and we are legally prevented from investigating their decisions. The wider issue of what information about this matter is passed on to schools in general is unlikely to create sufficient separable injustice to Miss X or her child to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received all the provision and support set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to issue Y’s amended EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales after Y’s January 2024 annual review. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan following the annual review and Y did not receive some vision therapy provision which they were entitled to.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Miss X frustration and distress and meant Y missed out on one term of special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly deal with flooding on the complainant’s road over many years. This is because:

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Mr Z’s care home neglecting him during his stay. This is because an investigation is not likely to reach any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late husband, Mr X, about care and support charges for respite care. Mrs X said the Council did not tell her the cost of respite care and took over a year to complete Mr X’s financial assessment. This resulted in unexpected, backdated charges of over £4,000. We found the Council at fault for delay completing Mr X’s financial assessment and for failing to provide appropriate and timely charging information. The Council will apologise and provide a symbolic financial remedy for the distress and lost opportunity this caused.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a disabled parking bay. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its decision caused significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure that the complainant’s son has had access to appropriate educational provision and unlawfully declined to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for him. The complaint concerns matters which were the responsibility of a school, or about which Miss X used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take action against a neighbouring landowner who breached planning permission. We find no evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a delayed Section 17 assessment and lack of financial support. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan as Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal.