LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. We have found fault causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommended ways to remedy this. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in his village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mr X’s appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: There was excessive delay by the Council in completing an annual review and amending a final Education, Health and Care Plan; in consulting specialist schools so it took two years to identify a place; and in replying to a request for a statutory reassessment. There was also a failure to complete agreed complaint actions. This caused unnecessary time, trouble, frustration, uncertainty and distress and delayed a right of appeal by over a year. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a neighbour’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was excessive delay in finalising an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after annual review and in consulting schools when a change of placement was recommended. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge distress and uncertainty, and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to consider a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing a response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.

Summary: We upheld a complaint about Y’s alternative education provision. The Council failed to discussed changes to the package and failed to consult with relevant health professionals to see if Y could cope with more hours. This caused avoidable uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about child protection and Miss X’s children. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to us to consider this matter now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to include therapeutic provision in a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant appealed the contents of the plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide her son, Y, with a suitable alternative education or the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan since February 2023. She also complained the Council did not meet the statutory timescales for reviewing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since September 2019. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan from February 2022 until October 2023. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms X’s child from January 2020 until October 2023. We also found fault with the Council delaying by 38

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the special educational needs provision set out in her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has lodged proceedings against the Council at the High Court about the matter.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete a needs assessment and issue an Education, Health and Care plan for her child, Y, within the statutory timeframe. Mrs X says this has impacted her mental health, caused stress and anxiety for Y and has had a significant financial impact on the family. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy to Mrs X and Y to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell him he might be charged for his care. The Council has waived some of the charges. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There was a delay in issuing Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable frustration, confusion and a delay in appeal rights for which the Council has already offered an appropriate payment. The Council will apologise and make an additional payment of £7200 to reflect the loss of special educational provision Mr Y was entitled to.

Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with alternative education provision despite being aware he could not attend school full-time and delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan following an emergency review. Mrs X says her son did not receive suitable full-time education and missed provision set out in his final plan. We found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, provision of any missed speech and language therapy and a symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with the educational provision in his education, health and care plan. The Council acknowledged the fault and injustice caused. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints that the Council refuses to take action over cars parked on the verge outside his property, has not maintained the verge and will not pay for damage caused by the parked cars to his fence. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to deliver alternative educational provision to Ms B’s son while he was out of school. It followed correct procedure and considered evidence properly before reaching its decision. However, it was at fault for a short delay in providing support for Ms B’s son’s special educational needs. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise his injustice.

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

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mrs X’s appeal and for a lack of communication. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a meeting a Council officer had with her friend, Mr Y. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not deliver suitable alternative provision or found a suitable school placement for her son. We have found fault with the Council for delays in providing alternative education when Mrs X’s son was out of school. We have also found fault with the Council for not issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan following the annual review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Ms X’s vehicle when the Council removed the road surface. The matter is best dealt with as an insurance claim, which should be escalated to the courts should no resolution be achieved.