LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions during her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and the content of the final amended EHC Plan. This is because Mrs X has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the content of the amended EHC Plan and it is reasonable for her to use it. A complaint about the Council’s actions during the annual review process is connected to and could form part of an appeal, so we cannot investigate this.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council overcharged Mr Y for care he received which caused her a financial loss and distress. We do not find fault with how the Council carried out its financial assessments or charged for Mr Y’s care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with Miss X relating to her son’s transition to a new school. The Council have considered Miss X’s complaint and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Ms X’s child’s case. The law prevents us investigating complaints about what happened in court, and we have no power to overturn a court decision and return Ms X’s child to her care.

We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her daughter an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Miss X had appealed this decision therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate. The Council had offered an appropriate remedy for the delays in making this decision, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about alternative education provision because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing family court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about procedural fault in reviewing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). This is because the complainant has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). By law, this prevents us from considering the content of the EHC Plan, and the procedural fault cannot be separated from the matter appealed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council for a Continuing Healthcare assessment. That is because the complaint is late. In addition, the decision not to award funding was made by the Clinical Commissioning Group, not the Council. Therefore, it is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council maintaining inaccurate data about Mrs X’s family, allegedly despite a decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO remains better placed than us to consider this matter as it has powers to order the rectification and erasure of data, and to impose penalties, that we lack.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the education provision for G. This is because the complainant has appealed against the Council’s decision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to provide the therapies specified in her daughter’s EHC Plan since September 2022. She says this has left her daughter unsupported and jeopardised her placement. Ms X also complains the Council has delayed in carrying out an annual review of her daughter’s EHC Plan. The Council’s failure to ensure Miss Y received the therapies specified in her EHC Plan since September 2022 is fault. As is the failure to hold an annual review of Miss Y’s EHC Plan in 2023. These faults have caused Ms X and Miss Y an injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver suitable education – and special educational needs support – to Mr B’s son while he had no school to go to. The Council should make symbolic payments to Mr B and his son to recognise their injustice. It should also take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a best interests decision made by the Council. That is because it would be reasonable to refer the matter to the Court of Protection.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the coroner’s office. We have no power to do so.

Summary: There was fault and delay in completing an annual review and a failure to provide suitable fulltime alternative education and special educational provision in an EHC plan for 5.5 terms. This continued after the Council admitted the fault. The fault has caused significant injustice to the whole family and loss of education to the child. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused and make service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure the provision in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan was provided and delayed providing suitable education following his child's permanent exclusion from school. Mr X said his child suffered significant distress and he suffered uncertainty about whether the exclusion was avoidable and if suitable alternative provision could have been provided sooner. We have found fault but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to fund a placement for him at a specific care home. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled him about the support hours Ms Y would receive following her move to an assisted living facility. We find the Council at fault for giving incorrect information to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and child in need action carried out by the Council in relation to the complainant’s family because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment that a stairlift would meet her mother’s needs, instead of the downstairs toilet the family wanted. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly manage and enforce safety standards in relation to highway works carried out by a utility company. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide the support set out in her son’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to provide the Education other than at School (EOTAS) provision he needed. There was fault that warranted a remedy.