LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the arrangements for the complainant’s son’s school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her education and special educational needs. We do not find the Council at fault regarding reimbursement of equipment.

Summary: Representatives for the late Mrs X complained that she did not receive the care and support she should have in a short-term residential care unit operated by Kent County Council and Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. We decided not to investigate the complaint. Mrs X has died, so an investigation would not achieve a remedy for her.

Summary: Representatives for the late Mrs X complained that she did not receive the care and support she should have in a short-term residential care unit operated by Kent County Council and Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. We decided not to investigate the complaint. Mrs X has died, so an investigation would not achieve a remedy for her.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of a care provider about the Council’s handling of payments relating to a service user. As part of the complaints process, the Council apologised for causing a delay in increasing payments for the service user from December 2024. It resolved the issue and put steps in place to prevent such delays in future. We found the Council’s response and action to be appropriate, and some parts of Mr X’s complaint related to contractual matters. We have therefore not made any further findings or recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs and maintenance works because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb request because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure it consulted Z’s preferred college placement to see if they could attend. It then delayed issuing Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failed to ensure Z had suitable education in place for one year. The Council’s faults led to avoidable missed provision for Z and distress and frustration for Z and their parent, Ms X. To recognise the injustice caused by the faults in this case, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £3,200 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assess the complainant’s children’s needs and refusal to accept his subsequent complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered a request for reasonable adjustments for Mr X’s child when they sat the grammar test exam. There was also no fault in how the independent appeal panel considered Mr X’s appeal of the decision not to award his child a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to consultation about a planning application. This is because any injustice Mr X claims stems from the decision to grant planning permission, rather than from the Council’s advice to the local planning authority. The local planning authority, rather than the Council, is responsible for this decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide education to her child between December 2023 to July 2024 because it is late. We will not investigate delays in the Council’s complaint handling because it does not meet the tests in our assessment code.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover unspent direct payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her child. This is because we have no power to consider complaints about what has happened in court and other matters could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a highway bollard on the corner of his property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor injustice directly stemming from its actions or inactions, to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her application for a dropped kerb to the front of her property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with weeds on his road, nor the actions of its contractor after he complained. Even if there has been Council fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that the walking route to her child, Y’s, school is safe and that Y is no longer eligible for home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report the Council has provided to the court in ongoing family court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s request for a change of educational placement for her child. The complaint concerns matters about which the complainant has used her right to appeal or are not separable from those matters, and therefore fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y had funding in place for social care provision outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide a personal budget for part of Y’s social care provision and failed to provide any help for Ms X in sourcing a support worker for Y when she struggled to find one herself. It leaves uncertainty around whether more could have been done to ensure the support was in place. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. It also agreed t

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed Mr X’s child’s special educational needs in issuing an Education Health and care Plan. Mr X used his right of appeal to a Tribunal and the matters he complains of are ancillary to that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused her application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of education as this was subject to a Tribunal appeal. We are unlikely to find significant injustice caused directly by the Council’s fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Social Care service and its response to her request for a change of school placement for her child. An investigation would be unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome and a complaint about her child’s education is premature. It is reasonable for her to complain to the Council about this and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply.