LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in issuing Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This delayed Miss X’s appeal rights, causing her avoidable distress. We have also found fault with the Council for its delay in securing alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. This caused Y to miss 2.5 terms of education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a food hygiene inspection at Mr X’s business. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that Mr X wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s provision of education since July 2024 for Y. It is not separable from the matters a Tribunal considered. There are no reasons to justify investigating matters known to Mrs X for more than 12 months.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed when enforcing a council tax payment against Mr X. It is not in our jurisdiction to investigate legal proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council has wrongly decided she does not qualify for a council tax single person discount. This is because it is reasonable for Ms B to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to tell Ms X about its decision to reassess her child and for delays issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. The Council was also at fault for not properly investigating whether Ms X’s child had missed out on some of the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X had to wait much longer than she should have to appeal against the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and she cannot be sure her child received the provision they should have. To remedy the injustice caused the Co

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for defective work carried out by a contractor under grant-aided works in 2016. Further investigation of this complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the annual review for his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan in 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £200. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care annual review process in 2024 because the complaint is late.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan was reviewed within statutory timescales. The Council also failed to provide Y with suitable alternative educational provision and the specialist provision set out in their EHC Plan after they stopped attending school. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of Y’s missed education as well as the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her child.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan because Mrs Y appealed the decision to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. For the remainder, there is insufficient evidence of fault and Mrs Y was not caused a significant enough injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to follow the Tribunal order and has not provided her son with an appropriate full time education or the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council’s delays in providing tuition and failure to ensure Mrs X’s son received the provision in his EHC Plan is fault. As is the failure to identify a suitable special school. This fault has meant Y has missed out on educational provision and has caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council should take action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council required him to temporarily move the kerb set on his relative’s grave to facilitate his father’s burial in the adjacent grave. The Council was at fault for not communicating its requirements properly. It was not at fault for its decision to require the kerb set to be moved. The Council will apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son with a full-time education and the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also says the Council’s communication about Education, Otherwise Than At School provision for her son was poor. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s son’s education and its failure to provide him with the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Mrs X. These faults caused distress and upset. Mrs X’s son missed education and provision. The Council has agreed to apol

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and the pre-application planning advice it provided. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a financial penalty to Mr X after he failed to comply with an improvement notice in the required timescale. This is because a Tribunal has already considered it and therefore the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide a school placement for her child Y who should have started Reception class in September 2023. There was fault causing injustice. Y’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan with her educational placement was delayed by about eighteen months. She did not receive any educational provision between September 2023 and the end of June 2024 which was not in line with legal requirements. Complaint handling was poor. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress, time and trouble and delay in appeal rights. It wi

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make an offer of housing within the seven years which Mr X says he has been on the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of his assessment if he has any new information which may alter his priority banding.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s non-priority decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of the decision and a further appeal to the County Court if this had been unsuccessful.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because the Council has decided to increase the family’s priority.

Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child, G, after it was ordered to by a tribunal. It also failed to properly record its decision-making regarding G’s education and delayed consulting for school places. The Council’s faults have caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £500 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request to change the educational placement named in is child’s Educational, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault in reviewing the Plan and dealing with Mr X’s resulting complaint. These faults caused Mr X avoidable distress and put him to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to carry out a new review, apologise to Mr X and pay him £600 in recognition of the injustice caused by its avoidable delays and other faults.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions linked to reports of a vehicle which belonged to him being abandoned. We found fault as the Council gave out an incorrect telephone number and did not respond to an email from Mr X in a timely manner. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and made a symbolic payment to him. We are satisfied this has remedied any injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making inconsistent decisions on planning applications for works to a window. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to approve the works, and they do not cause the complainant a significant personal injustice.