LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about either the provision or the placement set out in her child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal about this matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan review process. The Council have provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not removing its tree near her property, and how it dealt with her reports and complaint. This is because Ms X’s core complaint is a dispute between her and the Council about legal liability for damage to her property. It would be

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision about the funding of Miss X’s social care provision. This decision was made in consideration of available evidence and was based on professional opinion, which we have no power to question. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in reviewing Miss X’s support plan. This caused her mother – who was expecting an earlier review – an injustice, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice as Mr X asked the court to consider his case and the matter is therefore no longer within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Miss X’s concerns about how it safeguarded her. The complaint relates to matters which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because the complaint is late without good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to lower the banding priority of a housing application in 2024. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Y’s complaint about serious allegations made against him by a Council officer because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to meet the Educational, Health and Care Plan annual review timescales. This caused Mrs X and her daughter avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy their injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing an annual review and personal budget request for her son. The Council admitted it caused delay. It apologised and has improved the service. I have also suggested a financial remedy for distress caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had at a key time in their education. To remedy W’s injustice, the Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It has already agreed to take suitable action to prevent similar fault in future.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with the support outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and that Y’s school placement failed. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Council delayed investigating Y’s EHC Plan provision and delayed issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan following a review. The Council offered a suitable remedy for the injustice and will review the case to identify learning. The Council’s decision to name a school in Y’s EHC Plan came with a right of appeal and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as is the education

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council told her that her father’s care would be free. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council issues travel passes to Ukrainians and discriminates against elderly and disabled residents. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about the relocation of a bin store for Housing Association properties. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that an investigation could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in finalising her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan and the information supplied to Miss X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the delay finalising her son’s Education Health and Care plan or its content. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay and Miss X has appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council removing his possessions from a garage he leased from the Council. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of support to complain about a care worker, and about a failure to allocate a named social worker to her case. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that an investigation would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the conduct of library staff because Mr B has started court proceedings. Also, the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have followed the appeal procedure provided in law.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council arranged and reviewed the special education provision in her daughter, Y’s, Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault in how the Council arranged the support for Y, how it responded to changes Mrs X asked for, and delays following a review in May 2024. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, worry and uncertainty, along with some extra financial cost. The Council agreed to apologise, issue an amended final plan and pay Mrs X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how is arranges education outside school settings and issue reminders t

Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.