LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment for her daughter Y. Miss X further complained the Council failed to provide Y with an appropriate education between May 2021 and April 2022. The Council failed to issue the Education, Health and Care plan in line with the statutory timescales and failed to properly consider its duty to provide alternative education provision when Y was not attending school. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £450 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused to her and Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding actions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s policy on which contractors can do ‘dropped kerb’ works causes higher costs to applicants. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a delay in applying for a biometric card as there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in producing the flood investigation report covering the flooding of his road and land around it. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint about the Council’s actions in the mid-1990s. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint that Council road works caused her business to lose money. This was because we are not the right body to deal with her complaint and we are unlikely to achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply and unlikely to find fault with its decision on how to include him in meetings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of speed limit repeater signs on a road in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council not responding to her enquires about her mother, Mrs C, for four years. This is because as Mrs C’s attorney, Mrs B had the right to ask the Court of Protection to consider her concerns about Mrs C and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised about Ms X. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council as it was under a duty to consider concerns raised and is not responsible for the actions of the body making the referral or the actions of Ms X’s employer.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a public right of way and a Modification Order affecting land close to her property. We will not investigate the complaint because the case has been referred to the Planning Inspectorate for determination and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the highway drainage system. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mrs X’s mother prior to her death. This is because there is an ongoing Domestic Homicide Review which will consider the Council’s actions and it would not be appropriate for us to investigate as the same time.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s historic complaint about sexual abuse she suffered in the early 1980’s when she was a child in the Council’s care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s respite care at this time. We could not currently come to sound conclusions, because there is an ongoing safeguarding investigation and a coroner’s inquest. It is open to Mr X to resubmit his complaint to us at a later date.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council carried out a mental capacity assessment for the complainant’s mother. This is because we could not obtain the information the complainant wants by investigating her complaint and the Court of Protection is best placed to reach a decision on a person’s mental capacity where there is a dispute.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council included in a court bundle. This matter is not separable from court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided to introduce parking controls. The matter has not caused significant enough injustice for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the late Mrs B. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding even if we investigated.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s domiciliary care. We could not achieve a meaningful remedy, and the courts are better placed to deal with claims for compensation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in carrying out recommendations from a flood investigation report. The Council has now sent the recommended advice. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr G complained about the Council’s consultation for a traffic regulation order. He says there were several flaws in the Council’s process. The effect was they were excluded from the consultation process and now have a bus stop opposite their home. He also complains the bus company used the stop as a terminus, contrary to the order, and the Council refused to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was no fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son, who has special educational needs, with suitable education for 20 months. We have found the Council to be at fault because it allowed the case to drift and did not communicate properly with Mrs X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It already has a strategy in place to address the shortage of specialist placements in its area. We were unable to investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint because she had appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection actions and social worker’s court report. We cannot lawfully investigate because a court dealt with the case. The complaint about earlier events is also late and outside the permitted 12-month period.