LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint of bias by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It is also reasonable for Mr X to apply to the court if he wants contact with his children. Neither we nor the Council can achieve this outcome for Mr X.

Summary: The Council failed to secure a special school place as set out in a pupil’s child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council also failed to secure education and special educational provision between March and October 2024. The uncertainty whether these failures contributed to the pupil’s disengagement from education and inability to sit GCSE’s is an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver the content of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan; delayed reviewing this plan and failed to provide alternative education provision when her child was too unwell to attend school from September 2023. There was delay in completing two annual reviews and the Council accepts it did not do enough to ensure Ms X’s child was receiving suitable education. A financial remedy to acknowledge the loss of education and distress is agreed.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Ms X’s complaints about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and the process by which the Council made the EHC Plan because she appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to consultation for a planning application. This is because the Council is not responsible for the decision to grant planning permission or for any injustice which results from this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled Mr X’s care. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate this now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused an application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether it had a duty to make alternative educational provision while Mrs B’s son, K, could not attend school. There was also no fault in how the Council decided what educational provision it should offer once it accepted that duty.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support package. We found avoidable delay by the Council which caused Mrs X avoidable frustration. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and partially waive her care costs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action and undertake remedial works around Mrs X’s report of water flooding on her street. The Council was at fault for delays in carrying out site inspections and for failing to inform her of its decision not to take further action. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about blocked drains on the highway. The court is better placed to consider the complaint, and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to exercise his right to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not acted on the complainant’s concerns about the actions of a social worker. Investigation would not achieve the outcome she is seeking and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because the complainant has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan, so we have no power to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge her for social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to make educations provision after her son, Z, was permanently excluded from school and has still not found a school place for him. The Council failed to provide education in the statutory timescale after the exclusion and failed to meet the section 42 duty to meet his special educational needs. This has caused distress to the whole family and affected Z’s education. A financial remedy for the lost educational provision is agreed.

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a short delay when deciding Ms X’s daughter’s special educational needs support. It also caused a delay in sending a copy of the support plan to Ms X. It has already apologised to Ms X and has made service improvements. It has now also agreed to offer her a small, symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

The Council failed to properly assess Mr X’s care needs in 2024 leading to a wrongful reduction in his support package. Consequently, Mr X missed out on services to which he was entitled to receive. It also delayed in dealing with complaints about this.

Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s refusal to relocate a disabled parking bay. We found no fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to properly complete Miss Y’s financial assessment and give full consideration to her disability related expenditure (DRE). We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether the cost of the specialist toilet was DRE.

Summary: Mr X complains about how a Council and NHS Trust provided care to his father and safeguarded both his father and his mother between 2022 and 2024. We cannot consider Mr X’s complaints about events between 2022 and 2023 because these are late. We will not consider a complaint about how medication was used in 2024 because this is being considered by the coroner. Once the coroner’s considerations are complete, Mr X can ask us to look at this part of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongly charging Ms Y for her care and support. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why he did not complain sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care and support the Council provided to his late father, Mr Y. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain sooner.