LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of the Council’s assessment for her child. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway disrepair because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: The Council has agreed it missed the statutory target date to complete the annual review of a young person’s education, health and care plan, and that its standard of communication with his mother was inadequate. We consider these faults have caused injustice, and the Council has now agreed to offer a financial remedy to reflect this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant is complaining on behalf of a Parish Council and not as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her child, Y, failed to provide an appropriate education for Y between January 2023 and October 2024 and delayed in responding to her complaint. The Council was at fault for delay in completing an EHC needs assessment, failing to consider if it should provide alternative provision for Y and for poor complaint handling. The Council will apologise for the avoidable frustration, delay and uncertainty this caused Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £1,100 to recognise the same.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his claim for damages after his car was damaged by a drain cover. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education for her son, Y, for two and half years, delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and then issued it without all the relevant information and named a school Y would not attend. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed taking action after it completed mediation about the EHC Plan. The Council was at fault for delaying to issue Y’s EHC Plan, delaying taking action following mediation and failing to maintain oversight of alternative provision Y was receiving. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertaint

Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council has wrongly withdrawn Mrs Y’s care package, without properly considering how her needs will be met until her land can be sold. We found the Council’s decision to immediately end Mrs Y’s care package and seek to recover all costs incurred since April 2023 is fault. This has caused an injustice as Mrs Y’s care needs are not currently being met and Mr Y and Mrs Z are suffering carer stress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr and Mrs Y and Mrs Z. It will also reinstate Mrs Y’s care package, review her situation and provide training to

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the contents of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to appeal.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council had failed to provide specific funding for her son’s school in accordance with his Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault causing a loss of educational provision for Ms X’s son and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed a symbolic payment to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a bus lane contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the notice through the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development to a property in a village where the complainant lives. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice caused to the complainant to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing the complainant’s personal information with a third party. This is because the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the how the Council dealt with a noise complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in council tax billing. The Council has apologised and taken steps to improve the service. Further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, about the Council withdrawing funding for care Mr Y without notice. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide alternative and special educational needs provision for her son, J, when he stopped attending school. We found fault which caused uncertainty to Mrs D and J. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action to control an energy generation facility. X said the failure has affected the environment and local residents. There was delay, which was fault and caused X frustration, the Council has already apologised. The delay could also cause injustice to others in the future. The Council will arrange and hold a meeting with X to explain its enforcement decision and carry out service improvements to prevent recurrence of the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking permit scheme. This is because investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sister’s needs and in applying to have the deprivation of her liberty authorised. It also failed to ensure she received a consolidated response to all her concerns. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused. It also needs to apply to the Court of Protection to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised and take action to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. She says this resulted in Y missing out on a suitable education and their special educational needs provision. The Council delayed issuing Y’s Plan and delayed Miss X’s right of appeal to the SEN Tribunal. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to remedy the impact of its actions.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide education after her son no longer had a place at the school named on his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains than an annual review was delayed. Her child, Y, missed two terms of education. An apology and payment to the family remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provided to her late mother Mrs Y in a home commissioned by the Council. An investigation by us would not add to the care home and Council’s previous investigation nor lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome an investigation would now achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a noise complaint made by the complainant in respect of a music festival. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council assessed the complainant’s concerns and whether this amounted to a nuisance. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of a properly made decision.