LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its ap

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an Education, Health and Care Plan as it provided a proportionate remedy for the delay in issuing the final Plan. We do not have discretion to investigate the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan as Ms X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ action. There are no reasons to justify investigating events known to Ms X since 2021. We cannot investigate the Police’s actions. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a data sharing complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding of adult social care. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It has accepted fault, apologised for the distress caused and waived over £400 of client contribution. The Council has explained its calculations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of temporarily placing a child into Ms X’s care. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about college transport for her sons because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Miss X complains the Council unfairly reduced her Housing Benefit allowance for under-occupancy since 2011. She believes it should have told her about a right to an exemption from this reduction because her second bedroom is needed for an overnight carer. Miss X only became aware of this when she switched to Universal Credit in 2025 and received full housing costs, including her additional bedroom. Although the Council agreed to backdate her claim to April 2024, she remains unhappy and wants the Council to backdate the exemption to 2011 and reimburse the Housing Benefit she missed over this pe

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays by the Council carrying out the recommendations of a complaint review panel because the agreed actions are all now all either complete or underway and there is nothing more we could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the education her child receives. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s safeguarding referrals relating to his partner. The Court of Protection is involved to consider the substantive issues. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome in relation to parts of the complaint that would be separable.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue fixed penalty notices for children not attending school. Mr X had the option of not paying and, if the Council prosecuted him, he could have argued his case in court. The law prevents us investigating the school’s refusal to authorise the children’s absence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with children’s services. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why we should consider it. Additionally, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint about a Subject Access Request.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council shared his personal information with a third party in 2021 against data protection regulations. This is because Mr X has taken the matter to court.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan after Mrs X’s child, Y’s, annual review. This left Y without an up-to-date Plan and caused them significant frustration. The Council’s communication with Mrs X was also poor which added to her frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration the faults caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax reduction. This is because there was an appeal right Ms X could have used. The Council has invited Ms X to apply for

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to amend an Education Health and Care plan to include specific provision requested by the complainant. The complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty notice issued by the Council for unauthorised school absences. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to deliver alternative provision to Mrs X’s son when he was unable to attend school. This caused him to miss out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the missed education. We have also found fault with the Council for the delays during the annual review process. This delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights and caused the family avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s concerns about the impact of his neighbour’s extension. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Child and Family Assessment completed by the Council’s social worker. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: The Council, and KWL acting on its behalf, were at fault for delay installing a level access shower in Mr X’s home and for the poor quality of the resulting works. As a result, Mr X was without an adaption he needed for over two years and experienced avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son’s special educational needs causing delay and avoidable distress. The Council is at fault because it did not properly complete an Education Health and Care Plan annual review properly, did not complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment properly and did not manage documents properly. Miss X suffered delay to receiving her son’s final EHCP and avoidable distress. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £750.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council and Integrated Care Board did not deliver the provisions of her daughter, Y’s Education and Health and Care Plan. This led to frustration and distress for Mrs X. We found fault with both the Council and Integrated Care Board leading to the distress Mrs X has suffered. The Council and Integrated Care Board agreed to take actions to remedy this situation for Mrs X.