LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to meet is Equality Act duties in its assessment of her housing application and delayed accepting her need for an additional bedroom. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance. The complainant has not suffered a significant injustice because of the alleged fault, and it is reasonable to expect him to use the alternative court remedy to address his highway maintenance concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Ms X’s medical evidence in support of her application for school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate whether the amount stated on a Council Tax, Court issued, Liability Order is correct. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council attempting to recover less than the stated amount.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child from January 2024 to January 2025. She says that her child has special educational needs and has lost out on education because of this issue. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council losing the complainant’s records of being in foster care. This is because this complaint relates to personal data and is a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to deliver special educational provision included in her daughter’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also said the Council had failed to provide alternative education for Y when she was out of school, to carry out Y’s Education Health and Care needs assessment and communicate with her adequately. She also complained about the quality of the Educational Psychology advice for Y. We cannot investigate this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X’s appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tri

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to fund a profiling bed following an occupational therapy assessment for aids and adaptations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s disabilities when making housing decisions. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review or appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site close to Miss X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, nor can we achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Miss X’s son, Y ahead of his transfer to post-16 education. This resulted in Miss X and Y suffering avoidable distress. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to secure the support and provision in Y’s Plan. This missed provision caused Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a payment to Miss X

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a child protection investigation because the Council has responded appropriately and there is nothing we could add by further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s waste nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained about Somerset Council and Somerset Integrated Care Board’s care and support to her son, Mr Y, under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act in 2022 and 2023. We have decided we should not accept Ms X acting as Mr Y’s representative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. If Mrs X was unhappy with the content of her child’s plan, it was reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability).

Summary: Ms X complained about Somerset Council and Somerset Integrated Care Board’s care and support to her son, Mr Y, under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act in 2022 and 2023. We have decided we should not accept Ms X acting as Mr Y’s representative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son following an annual review. She also complained the Council failed to ensure her son received the required special educational provision while he was not attending school. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused considerable distress and anxiety to her and her son. We found the Council to be at fault. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy.

Summary: The Council delayed carrying out Ms X’s child, Y’s, annual review and then delayed issuing the amended Education, Health and Care plan. The delay totalled two years. It caused Y to miss six terms of the provision in their Plan and Ms X significant distress, frustration and time and trouble. The Council has since put Y’s provision in place. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of the delay and missed education.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not assess Mr X as needing supported living. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X‘s complaint that the Council did not apply mediation rules correctly in a special educational needs matter, and that it did not adequately fund the provision intended for her child for September 2025. She has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal about the disputed content of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. Investigation of how the Council approached mediation would not be likely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. The second matter was speculative at the time she approached us. Ms X would need first to complain to th

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing benefit. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action and there is nothing further we would add or recommend.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax matter. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for this.

Summary: There was fault by the Care Home which acted for the Council. It served notice to end Mrs Y’s placement due to non-payment of client contributions, when it should have liaised with the Council for repayment. There was also no right of appeal against a ban on Mrs Y’s daughter visiting. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment for avoidable distress and ensure the Care Provider makes amendments to the service user agreement and visiting policy.