LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about delays with the annual review process and finding a suitable placement for her child, and they stopped attending school. We found the Council at fault for its delays and not properly considering its alternative provision duty, causing significant frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s care and support visits and arrangements. We found the Council at fault for failing to clearly communicate the purpose of its review, having some errors in its report, and lack of record keeping of steps taken to find Mr X a suitable placement. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mr X and Mrs C.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refuse and recycling centre denying him access to its services in a box van he hired. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s handling of his partner, Ms X’s, council tax account. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately consider in a timely manner whether documents were being served to Ms X at the proper address. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and meant she paid an enforcement fee she should not have been charged. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, refund the relevant fee and issue a reminder to relevant staff.

Summary: Mrs X complained her child’s school removed the one-to-one support for her child detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan and the Council failed to restore this. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Mrs X’s child one-to-one support from September 2024 until April 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £500 for her child’s lost provision, £100 for the inconvenience and frustration its delays caused and confirm it will rebate her the cost of paying a deposit to her child’s new school on receipt of evidence of this cost.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay by the Council in supplying data. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse the complainant’s legal costs. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to take the matter to court who are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mr X's claim for compensation after his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because ultimately this matter can only be determined in court, and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to resort to such action for the compensation he seeks. Mr X is not caused a sufficient level of injustice from the delay he reports to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated Ms X’s safeguarding concerns about a relative. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue his son with a Blue Badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment and it failed to provide her child with a suitable education when she was unable to attend school. We found the Council at fault for delaying the needs assessment and issuing the final EHC Plan, failing to arrange alternative education and failing to communicate with Miss X effectively. The faults identified have caused a loss in education and avoidable distress over a significant period. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice by providing an a

Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to make sure that Mrs B’s daughter was getting the special educational provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. This meant that her daughter missed out on crucial provision and also caused Mrs B and her family distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the missed provision, and a separate payment to recognise the impact on Mrs B and here family.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s education provision. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Investigation into poor communication by the Council would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss E complained the Council failed to secure alternative education provision, after her child could not attend school from January 2024 onward. We upheld the complaint finding the Council did not properly consider her child’s need for alternative provision before November 2024, when it provided an Education, Health and Care Plan. We considered that if it had done so, it would have made such provision. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Miss E as a result and to improve its servi

Summary: Mr X complained the Council and bailiffs acting on its behalf, wrongly enforced a Penalty Charge Notice for a traffic offence which was committed by a different person with the same name. We upheld the complaint. The Council will apologise, make a payment for the avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. The Council will also review its computer system.

Summary: Lifeways Community Care Limited (the Care Provider), and the Council found that Mr K’s care and support was inadequate. The Council found that this put him at risk of abuse and neglect. Mr K was caused distress and had to move home. The Care Provider did not handle the complaint properly. The Council initially failed to handle the safeguarding concern appropriately. It did rectify this and has taken robust action to make sure that it does not commission further until the Care Provider makes improvements. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr K’s sister who acts on his behalf, and

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since October 2024. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to secure the full educational provision set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council delaying for eight weeks in providing Alternative Provision of education for Mrs X’s child. We also found fault with the Council delaying for eight weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. When the Council produced the Education, Health and Care Plan it failed

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision made for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Company Y. She complained the Council wrongly pursued Company Y for unpaid business rates for an office it occupies. She also complained about poor communication from the Council. We found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council agreed to apologise, refund the money paid by Company Y and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X in pursuing this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about applications for discretionary council tax support and council tax exemptions. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her council tax bill. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and investigation would not add to the one carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that the complainant’s daughter was kept safe by her school, and that it produced a flawed report on safeguarding procedures at the school. This is because the complaint primarily concerns the actions of a school and, as such, the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering it.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in her detention under the Mental Health Act. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Some of Ms X’s concerns are matters for other bodies to consider.