LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X should have appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There were administrative errors and delays sending a final Education, Health and Care plan after mediation. There were also delays referring child Y for home tuition, which meant she spent 7 months with no formal education. Finalising the Education, Health and Care plan, reviewing procedures and making a payment to Y and Mrs X remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We will not exercise discretion to consider parts of her complaint which relate to matters outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

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

Summary: There was fault in the initial calculation of the contribution and in some of the invoices the Council sent. There was further fault as the Council disclosed information about Ms B which it should not have done. We find no fault in the Council’s help in finding residential accommodation for Ms B for a short period of time and Ms B’s stay at that accommodation. The Council has corrected the error in the contribution and invoices and backdated any changes and has offered £500. These are appropriate remedies for the fault that we have found.

Summary: Miss H complains the Council and Trust significantly delayed her son J’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review, and J did not receive the 1-1 speech and language therapy sessions in his plan. There was fault by the Council and Trust. There were long delays in the annual review process, and in the response to Miss H’s complaint. The Council failed to ensure J received the speech and language education provision in his plan. This has caused an injustice as J has missed out on educational provision in his plan, and Miss H has suffered stress and upset. The Council and Trust have

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refer Miss X to the Local Authority Designated Officer after it received a safeguarding referral for Miss X. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £300 for the avoidable distress its actions caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr Y has used his right to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre so the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not take steps to secure alternative provision for a period of time when a child was not in education because of health reasons. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this fault caused. The Council was also at fault for a small delay in issuing the child’s education, health and care plan, but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to littering and fly-tipping in one of its districts. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, the alleged fault has not caused Mrs B a significant injustice.

Summary: Miss F complains about the way the Council dealt with her son’s special educational and social care needs. There was some fault which caused uncertainty to her son. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £300 to acknowledge this.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a developer, who had carried out works near a river. We did not investigate this complaint further, as we are unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy for Mr X or reach any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve an enforcement notice. This is because Mrs C has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because the Council will reconsider the application and do a face-to-face mobility assessment.

Summary: I have ended our investigation into this complaint because the Council has recently begun an independent review of the care provider and service Ms X complained about. Further investigation by us could achieve nothing more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because the court is better placed to consider this complaint. As we are not able to deal with the substantive issue, we will not investigate how the Council handled the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it will reconsider the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Summary: Mr S complains the Council did not suitably consider his concerns about the care his daughter was receiving when in care. Mr S complains the Council did not recognise the impact of the issues he raised. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider suitable recommendations during the stage three review. This caused Mr S and Child P significant injustice and meant the Council did not fully address Mr S’s concerns. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s housing application. This is because the Council agreed to review its decision to cancel his housing application and has reinstated it. This action is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and there is nothing further we can achieve.

Summary: Mrs F and the Council has reached an agreement about her complaint regarding her late husband’s care charges, which both parties are happy with. As there is nothing further we could achieve, we have discontinued our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s care or what happened during a best interests meeting. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because the Council will reconsider the application by offering a face-to-face mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to fit a shield to a street light. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.