LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with its decision to suspend its investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Ms X an exemption for her health condition. This is because she has right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it would be reasonable for her to use it.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son with sufficient education or ensure her son received the provision in his EHC Plan. The Council’s decision making was delayed and lacked clarity and its communications with Miss X were poor. That caused Miss X uncertainty and distress. An apology, payment to Miss X and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delays with an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She also said the Council did not provide alternative provision for her son when he struggled to attend school. We found fault with the Council’s delay and for not being able to evidence how it made its decisions about alternative provision. This caused frustration, uncertainty,

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a delay in replacing gully covers or her complaint that her car was damaged. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and it is reasonable for Miss X to take a claim for damages to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data protection breach. This is mainly because it is reasonable to expect Mr X and Mrs Y to take court action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan. We have upheld the complaint, and the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling child protection matters. The issues raised relate to court proceedings. Further investigation into matters separable from the court proceedings is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of school consultations and its failure to obtain a specialist report before issuing a child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with other matters.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision to her daughter when she could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering its duties for alternative provision, causing frustration, distress and missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice, and take action to prevent future recurrence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete Miss X’s son Education Health and Care needs assessment properly. This is because Miss X has appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard a child and breached Miss X’s data protection rights. This is because Miss X is not a suitable representative for the child involved and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a data breach.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about toilet facilities at train and bus stations or private parking fines. The actions he complains about are not an administrative function of the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the contact she has with her family because the Court is considering this. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider inaccurate documents complaints. And Mrs X is not the best person to complain about children services’ actions as she does not have parental responsibility.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the green waste collection service she receives from the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council emptying a bin he had not put out for collection. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide respite care for her disabled child. We found the Council to be at fault because it failed to properly consider the issue. There was also fault with the Council’s complaint handling. To remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by its faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its service.

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. If Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her child’s EHC Plan it is reasonable for her to appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a safeguarding matter, nor its handling of Mr X’s complaint. Further investigation would not add to the findings the Council has already made, and the Council has offered a suitable remedy to Mr X for the injustice caused by delays in complaint handling.

about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to amend her child’s Education Health and Care Plan in line with a tribunal order. This is because she has commenced court proceedings about the same matters.