LGO Individual Decisions

We found the Council delayed for 13 months in arranging alternative educational provision from February 2024 after Mrs X’s child, Y, was unable to attend school. This is the second time we have found the Council at fault for failing to provide education to Y. This caused Y to miss out on a suitable education and caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the support provided by the Council’s homelessness service. The Council has since ended its housing duty to Ms X and if she disagrees with this decision, she has a right of review. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council named an unsuitable school in his child, Y’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mr X could have appealed the content of Y’s EHC Plan to the First-tier Tribunal. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education to Y, because further investigation would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council produced a care plan for his child, Y which does not align with a care order. He also complained about poor communication from its legal department. The Council started investigating the complaint through the statutory procedure but failed to consider it at stage three. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and arrange a stage three panel to consider Mr X’s complaint without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vehicle the Council removed as an abandoned vehicle. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not considering whether it could provide Mr X homelessness assistance after it knew he had left his accommodation. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether he could have received help from the Council sooner. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying carrying out a carers assessment and for not telling Mr X the outcome of a safeguarding enquiry. This meant Mr X had to wait longer than he should have to receive a direct payment for respite and did not know the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry he raised. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X for the distress caused from the delays carrying out the carers assessment and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council pruned his hedge without telling him. We could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and the suitability of her child’s education provision. The Council have offered a suitable remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s application for the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint that his property has been damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain a property it owns. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the waiting times for a Council property, and her concerns about the Council’s Choice Based Lettings scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how it has applied its process to her housing register bid. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and communicated poorly. We find the Council at fault for both delays and a short period of poor communication causing uncertainty and distress for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: After the Council disclosed Ms X’s address to a third party, putting her at risk of harm, it delayed information sharing and failed to properly consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty. In recognition of the uncertainty Ms X has been caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £400 and take action to improve its services. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to write off Ms X’s rent arrears, or its decision she was not eligible to join the housing register.

Summary: After the Council disclosed Ms X’s address to a third party, putting her at risk of harm, it delayed information sharing and failed to properly consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty. In recognition of the uncertainty Ms X has been caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £400 and take action to improve its services. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to write off Ms X’s rent arrears, or its decision she was not eligible to join the housing register.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a parenting assessment. This is because the Council have amended the parenting assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about the safety and wellbeing of one of his children. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting permission for a vehicle crossover. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the preparation of a lease relating to the erection of signage on its land. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider his request that it include medical cannabis as a disability related expense when it completed his financial assessment. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable alternative provision for her child, W, when they stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, upset and uncertainty but we cannot say, even on balance, that it meant W missed out on education they should have had. To remedy Mrs X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay her £500. It will also issue a staff reminder to prevent the fault happening again.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about Council commissioned care his mother, Mrs Y received, from Housing 21 and failed to provide an appropriate remedy after upholding the complaint. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint, and the Care Provider had already provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault in its actions relating to Mrs Y’s care.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Ms X to lose out on a school place.