LGO Individual Decisions

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 the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan and failed to provide education or alternative provision and special educational needs provision for her son. We found fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the preparation and contents of a Section 7 report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about an accident Mr X’s mother had in a care home, which Mr X believed was due to inadequate assessment of her needs before her arrival. There is not good reasoning for the entire period of delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about completion of forms for a private court application. The Council has no duty to complete the form, so it is not likely we would find it at fault for refusing to do so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to address the complainant’s son’s needs and to make appropriate educational provision for him son. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the law prevents us from intervening.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the college named in the Education, Health and Care Plan and the loss of educational provision because it was reasonable for the complainant to have used her right of appeal to a Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a failure to tell a woman’s family when she died. Services provided coherent explanations for why they did not contact anyone. It is unlikely that an investigation would be able to find evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision when her child was out of school and failed to issue her child’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for not arranging alternative provision and for failing to issue a final amended Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, issue the final amended Plan, and provide an update on the actions it is taking to improve its annual review processes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s actions amount to a failure to secure the provision set out in an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the specific provision was not

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays agreeing a personal budget and issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, and poor communication. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a councillor conduct complaint as it would not be in the public interest to do so given our limited resources.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to maintain oversight of Ms X’s child Y’s educational provision from October 2023 to April 2024. It has already made a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused which was in line with our guidance. It will apologise to Ms X and Y to acknowledge the frustration caused as a result of its fault.

Summary: Miss X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following a safeguarding allegation made against her. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, there was unnecessary delays during the investigation. Further, the LADO process did not apply policy or set clear timescales for actions to be completed after the investigation concluded. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her and review its polic

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because it is unlikely we would add to the care provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The care provider accepted fault, apologised for the distress caused, and acted to improve future service. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about breach of personal data.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaints about the accuracy of social work reports because the matters complained about were considered by a court. We will not investigate the remainder because the issues are likely to have been considered by a court or are late.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not updating Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales following a Tribunal order but this did not cause Y an injustice because they were already on roll at the educational placement. The Council was not at fault for failing to secure Y’s section F provision and not at fault for failing to provide suitable alternative provision when Y could not attend school, in the investigation period.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council managed her husband’s contributions towards his care. We find no fault with the Council’s reviews of his contributions, or its decision not to issue a direct payment card. However, we do find fault in the Council’s flawed decision-making regarding disability related expenditure costs, its failure to explain all financial assessment letters it sent and its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X and his care. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection actions and decisions after her baby suffered an unexplained injury, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance and drainage because the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter, who are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Miss X by Adult Social Care Services. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: There was significant delay in updating an Education, Health and Care Plan which meant the family did not have an appeal right at a time when they had lost confidence in the named school. There was a failure to provide alternative education once the Council agreed the placement was untenable until a new school place was found. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to acknowledge the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in a family member leaving the family home. We are unlikely to find this was directly caused by Council fault.