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 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 that the Council wrongly sent enforcement agents to Mr X’s neighbour’s home. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying assessing Ms X for adaptations to her property. As a result Ms X has not been able to wash properly and has had to wait much longer than she should for the Council to agree to adaptations. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her to recognise the delays she experienced and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not issue an updated Education, Health and Care Plan for his child, Y after an annual review in August 2024. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. We found fault by the Council on both parts of Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of Y’s missed provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safety risk at a Council car park which he has reported. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Mr X appealed this decision to a Tribunal and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mr X’s further complaint about subsequent delays in the assessment process after the tribunal ruling. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice here.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw its offer to buy Mr X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council made a false accusation against her and then did not handle her complaint properly. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to provide accommodation that meets the needs of her family. The Council failed to take timely action once it was determined that her current property could not be adapted to meet her needs meaning Mrs X has been living in accommodation without proper washing and sleeping facilities impacting on her mental and physical health. As well as exploring all possibilities to find alternative accommodation the Council will make Mrs X a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council recorded addresses for new properties. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. For the remainder of Mrs X’s complaint, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missed garden waste collection. This is because there is not significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. Therefore his complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of a community infrastructure levy charge. Mr X has had rights of appeal it would be reasonable to use against the Council’s calculation, the deemed commencement date and a surcharge imposed. Any matters of alleged unlawfulness are ones only a court could determine, and it would be reasonable to seek any finding of unlawfulness by going to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place a legal charge against his late parent’s property. This is because it is not in our jurisdiction to do so and we previously considered his complaint. Mr X’s complaint is also late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about parking outside her property, because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about the Council’s issuing of multiple Penalty Charge Notices and how it handled her complaint. The Council has cancelled and refunded most of the charges, so there is insufficient outstanding injustice to justify investigating these. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Ms Z’s outstanding concerns. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her tenancy agreement and an incentive payment to her landlord. The complaint is late. There is no indication Ms X could not have complained earlier and no good reason to decide to investigate now. In any case, Ms X has not suffered a sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an Excess Charge Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to pay Mrs X following a county court judgement awarded in her favour. This is because Mrs X has already sought to enforce the judgement through the courts. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions leading to the original judgement or its use of public funds to avoid payment, as these issues also fall outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her case when her children were taken away from her. The issues raised relate to what happened in court.

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