LGO Individual Decisions

The Council failed to decide if it was “necessary” to provide appropriate free transport to enable Ms X’s adult daughter, Miss Y, to attend the college named in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It confused matters for adult learners, like Miss Y, who began their course after the age of 19, with the education transport rules for sixth form students. The Council’s amended Transport Policy 2024/2025 was not in line with the Education Act 1996 or case law for 19–25 year old learners with an EHC Plan. The faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration, avoidable time and trouble and uncertainty

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 this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s application for housing as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not apply his single person council tax discount and wrongly instructed enforcement agents to take debt recovery action against him. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. The Council was not at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s council tax account or for instructing enforcement agents. The Council was at fault for its lack of communication with Mr X, which caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate the behaviour of a Parish Councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of Parish Councils.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a report of fly-tipping. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about accuracy of information held by the Council. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about information the Council has recorded about her and her children. The Council has already amended its records for Miss X’s family. There is not enough evidence of remaining fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his son, Y’s care. The Council was at fault for incorrectly making an early referral and giving Mr X confusing information about panel attendees. This caused Mr X frustration. The Council has agreed to arrange a stage three panel to remedy this.

Summary: Mrs F complained about how the Council has handled her homelessness. The Council has accepted there was a delay in placing Mrs F in temporary accommodation. This caused Mrs F distress whilst she was awaiting eviction. The Council has already made a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in the care of Mrs X’s child. Most of the complaint relates to matters considered in court, which the law prevents us from investigating. Events before May 2024 are late. There is insufficient evidence of fault in more recent events we could consider, and in any event we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict the complainants contact under its unreasonable behaviour policy. This is because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a student exemption from Council tax because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has responded to her concerns about large trees in a neighbouring garden, and how it has dealt with her complaint. Ms X’s complaint about the Council up to 2023 is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Her complaint about more recent events is premature for us to investigate. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application to join the housing register and reviewed his banding. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delay, which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It should also review its action plan to ensure Education, Health and Care Plan writing is conducted in line with the timescales set out in statutory guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to extend his dedicated dropped kerb to create a shared footway crossing with his neighbour in 2022. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review (AR) in July 2024, ahead of Y’s transfer year in 2025. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan by four months following the July AR. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y to recognise the distress and uncertainty the delay caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan review delay, communication issues and delays in replying to her complaint. We are unlikely to be able to significantly add to the Council’s reply to her complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she told it she was a victim of domestic abuse. We find the Council at fault in its handling of her initial approach, including its treatment of her at its offices, its failure to complete a Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence risk assessment, and its failure to provide interim accommodation without delay. We also find fault in the Council’s delay in accepting the relief and main housing duties, its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation and unsafe areas, its failure to inform Ms X of h

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about decisions by a child protection conference and its complaints’ outcome. We are unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Miss X’s homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because there is not enough evidence of fault. We have no powers to consider concerns about the standard of care arranged by the NHS.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor crossing her property because it relates to the Council’s function as a social housing landlord and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour generated by the site because the Council has not had the opportunity to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to inform the complainants about changes to the Right to Buy discounts. It is reasonable to expect the complainants to use the alternative court remedy.