LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the review of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment by Children’s Social Care because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants, and there is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker and the adequacy of the resulting complaints process. Social Work England is better placed to consider social worker professional standards matters, and we could not add to the Council’s previous findings on the substantive issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s safeguarding complaints. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to reimburse her for the money she spent transporting her children to and from school. We find no fault with the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to replace a psychologist despite having agreed to provide Mr X with one indefinitely and delayed completing a care assessment. The Council failed to explain why the psychology input had ended and it delayed completing a care assessment. That caused Mr Y and his wife distress. An apology, payment to Mr Y and provision of an action plan to address the backlog of care assessments is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mrs X’s child, Y received an education or the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2024 and April 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s use of road signs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We found fault with the Council’s delay in issuing Ms X’s child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failure to consider whether to put alternative provision in place. This caused Ms X and Y uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y for the delay and failure to consider its duty and make a payment to remedy the injustice. We did not find fault with the Council for failing to provide alternative provision for Ms X’s child.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a report on its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Service. That is because the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of a council social worker. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action to resolve Mrs X’s concerns and we cannot say the actions complained about caused her significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of parking issues. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X and Mrs Z’s complaint about a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessment carried out for their mother. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not arranging alternative provision when Mrs X’s child stopped attending school because appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal have been used. We cannot investigate matters which are the subject of an appeal or are closely linked to the appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled a review of her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection actions. This is because the matters have been the subject of family court proceedings. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints that the Council withheld information from him and made false accusations. These issues are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision for her son, Y. She also complained the Council failed to issue Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales. Mrs X said Y missed education. She said the delays and missed provision frustrated her and impacted her financially. There was fault in the way the Council did not provide Y with suitable alternative provision and delayed issuing his final EHC Plan. This frustrated Mrs X, frustrated her appeal right to the Tribunal and Y missed education. The Council agreed to apologise and m

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his application for a Blue Badge. We find no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed his application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing a suitable school for Miss X’s child for September 2025. The Council issued an Education Health and Care Plan naming a school for the child for September 2025. This gave Miss X an alternative remedy it would have been reasonable to use by way of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Following her subsequent unsuccessful application to a school in another area, it would be for her to appeal to the same Tribunal against any refusal of the Council to name that school on her child’s Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor blocking a foul water drain, and the Council referring his legal liability claim for damages to its contractor’s insurer. There is insufficient significant injustice to him from the Council directing his claim to the contractor’s insurer to justify us investigating. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X put his claim to the Council’s insurer, then to the courts if required, to pursue the decision and outcomes he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act in respect of fraud involving public funds as this matter is outside our legal remit as it impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to agree all her son’s disability related expenditure she requested. There is either not enough evidence of fault or not enough outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.