LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because the matter was appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained that after moving into the Council’s area, it failed to provide his child, Y, with suitable education or alternative provision. We have ended our investigation because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about payments made to a foster carer. It is unlikely we could say he has been caused any significant direct injustice by the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the preparation and contents of a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings.

Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled the transfer and review of Y’s EHCP, the provision of SEN support, education while out of school, and aspects of communication. These faults caused injustice to Y and Mr X. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance, and so I do not recommend any further action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council imposing a tree preservation order and refusing Mr X’s request to trim the trees. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about tree works in a conservation area because there is not enough evidence of fault. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s communication because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into how the Council remedied the impact of Ms X’s child missing education. This is because we cannot achieve anything further.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council in granting planning permission at a neighbouring property. Mr X has exercised his right to approach a court to challenge the Council’s decision. This means a permanent legal bar now prevents us investigating the matter complained of.

Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to keep Mrs X’s child’s access to education under suitable review from March 2025 to the end of the academic year. The Council agreed to reconsider its Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education for Mrs X’s child considering up-to-date information, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £400 for her child’s potential lost opportunity and her uncertainty caused by the Council’s fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action in respect of a street light that casts excessive light into the bedrooms of his home. There is no fault in how the Council and its contractor has investigated Mr X’s complaint and taken the decision that the light should not be adjusted.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to collect refuse from Mr X’s driveway. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed reviewing a child’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s delivery of her child, Z’s special educational provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice in failing to: deliver the provision in Z’s EHC Plan; and offer a social care assessment as it had previously agreed to do. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by: apologising; making payments to recognise the impact of the missed education and upset; and offering a social care assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with Miss X over education provision. The Council has upheld Miss X’s complaints and has offered a suitable remedy for her injustice. There are no wider public interest issues that justify investigating.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to complete the annual review procedure and issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her daughter, who I will refer to as C. She also complained the Council failed to secure C with education and provision detailed in her EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It did not issue an amended EHC Plan within the statutory timescales following the annual review of C’s EHC Plan. It also did not ensure C received section F provision detailed in her EHC Plan and failed to arrange alternative provision for C when it was aware she was not attend

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not provide suitable alternative provision for her child and delayed issuing the Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X says this caused her child to miss out on education and impacted their emotional wellbeing. We find no fault with the Council’s alternative provision offer. We do find the Council at fault regarding the delay in issuing the Education Health and Care Plan which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s housing application decision and its handling of her case. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council’s failure to deliver some of the provision outlined in her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Some of the provision Ms Y wanted is connected to an ongoing appeal and so we have not investigated this part of the complaint. In other parts of the complaint, we find the Council delayed in issuing the final EHC plan and then failed to maintain regular contact with Ms Y as agreed. This caused injustice which the Council will remedy with an apology and symbolic payment.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s decision to request repayment of direct payments paid on behalf of her son, Mr X. We found the Council was at fault because it took over a year to raise concerns about how direct payments were spent and issue an invoice. This delay led to avoidable, unauthorised spending and caused distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and reduce the invoice. It will also take action to ensure direct payments are properly monitored in future.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not identifying an error on Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application and for repeating the error in a planning condition it imposed. Mrs X suffered overlooking and loss of privacy when her neighbour failed to comply with the planning condition. The Council agreed to apologise, contact Mrs X’s neighbour to confirm when they have complied with the condition, and check the work to ensure it satisfactorily protects Mrs X’s amenity.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her relationship with the Council when she was a look after child and as a care leaver. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to ensure her child, who I will call D, received suitable education when they were unable to attend school full-time. She also complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for D. There is fault in the first part of Ms Y’s complaint because the Council cannot demonstrate that it properly considered the request for D to receive alternative education, which created uncertainty. We cannot investigate the initial decision not to issue a plan because this carried a right of appeal which Ms Y used. However, we

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to appeal to the Tribunal.