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 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 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: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide education to her child, Y, or the content of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan to them between April 2023 and July 2024 because Miss X appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

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: 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 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 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 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: 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 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: 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 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 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 Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of disrepair because it is late. There is no indication Mr X could not have complained earlier and no good reason to decide to investigate now. Even if the complaint was not late, it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything worthwhile to the Council’s response or lead to a different outcome.