LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in issuing his granddaughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and has failed to provide suitable education. The Council has accepted fault and has accepted the recommended ways to remedy the resulting injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to complete the review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescale, failed to arrange special educational provision and delayed a personal budget payment. We have found fault by the Council in failing to meet the statutory timescale for the review, and delay with the personal budget payment. The Council has agreed to remedy these faults by apologising, making a payment to reflect Mrs Y’s time and trouble and a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain a traffic island. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole which the Council failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in completing the complainant’s son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan which, in turn, delayed the son being placed in a suitable school. The complainant also complained that the Council failed to offer any interim alternative provision. We find the Council at fault on the first aspect and have recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. But we do not find the Council at fault by not offering alternative education because the complainant decided to withdraw her son from school and home educate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council underfunded his mother’s residential care home placement over a decade ago. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker for the Council during child protection action. This is because the actions complained of relate to court proceedings and are out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has failed to provide D with an education. We cannot investigate the education a school provided or issues which the Tribunal is covering.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in preparing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan and, as a result, he missed out on receiving a suitable education and support. The Council has accepted there was an avoidable delay. We have recommended an improved remedy for the injustice caused to the family, which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints procedure. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a Council gritting lorry. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: Mr R, representing his daughter, Ms G, said the Council was at fault for delays in providing suitable care for Ms G, and for being unhelpful and obstructive in the way it monitored spending of direct payments made to fund that care. He also said it was responsible for unnecessary delays in finding care and communicated poorly with the family. The Council was at fault for poor communication. This fault caused Ms G injustice because the family felt the Council was accusing them of dishonesty. The Council should apologise. I have not found the Council at fault in other regards.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to his business’ listing on the Council’s Buy With Confidence (BWC) scheme. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker relating to Mr X’s intention to take a child overseas more than 15 years ago. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council sought a care order, so the involvement of a court means we cannot investigate. Even if that were not so, the complaint is late and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for care or meet her needs. Ms X also complained the Council delayed referring her homelessness application to other local authorities. The Council was not at fault regarding referring her homelessness application to other authorities. It was at fault for reducing Ms X’s care package without reviewing her care plan and delay in allocating her a social worker. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they must carry out a review before reducing someone’s care package.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to introduce parking restrictions on a road to the rear of Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her son, B, and failed to provide him with suitable education while it found a new placement over a two-year period. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing Ms Y and B injustice. The fault denied Ms Y her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal and B missed out on a suitable education. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and B, make them several payments as well as certain service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for care or meet her needs. Ms X also complained the Council delayed referring her homelessness application to other local authorities. The Council was not at fault regarding referring her homelessness application to other authorities. It was at fault for reducing Ms X’s care package without reviewing her care plan and delay in allocating her a social worker. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they must carry out a review before reducing someone’s care package.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to obtain necessary reports in its assessment of a child’s special educational needs. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to a tribunal and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now allocated the complaint to an independent person and will complete its stage two investigation. It has also agreed to offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out in 2019 by an Occupational Therapist. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council's special educational needs team’s delays.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr X’s children. These are not separable from court action.

Summary: Mrs B complained her appeal for a place for her daughter at School 1 was unsuccessful. We found fault with the Council for failing to record its decision not to hold appeals by telephone or video conference. The Council will remind relevant school admission appeal officers of the importance of recording procedural decisions to prevent causing injustice in the future.

Summary: Miss B complained her appeal for a place for her son at School 1 was unsuccessful. She said this meant her son had to attend a different school to his siblings which he found upsetting. We found fault with the Council for failing to record its decision not to hold appeals by telephone or video conference. The Council will remind relevant school admission appeal officers of the importance of recording procedural decisions to prevent injustice being caused in the future.