LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council failure to provide her child, D, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school due to extreme anxiety. We have not found fault with how the Council responded to his non-attendance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council sent the local planning authority in connection with applications and enforcement action which Planning Inspectors later decided on appeal. There is not enough evidence to show the injustice Mr B claims flows from the Council’s actions rather than the Inspectors’ decisions, so the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code and it does not warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to waive library fees Miss X had incurred at a Council library. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Council delayed in responding to Mrs X’s request for an increase in care hours, unfairly recouped direct payment monies, and failed to investigate issues relating to the amount and timing of direct payments.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education for the period January 2022 to April 2023 when he was not attending school or the education provision set out in his education, health and care plan. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Child and Family assessment report. The law prevents us from considering the content of reports produced as part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child (Y) with occupational therapy provision as set out in his Education, Health and Care plan, delays in considering a request for a Personal Budget and poor complaint handling.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable full-time education for her daughter since February 2023 when she was no longer able to attend school. The Council also failed to ensure she received the therapies specified in her EHC Plan. The Council’s failure to properly consider and record how it satisfied itself Y was receiving a suitable education while unable to attend school is fault. As is the Council’s failure to complete Y’s Annual Review and issue a final EHC Plan within the statutory timeframes. This fault has caused Ms X and Y an injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about decisions a coroner’s officer made during inquest proceedings because those decisions are outside our jurisdiction. And while we could investigate how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint about these matters, we should not investigate this, because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve for Miss X in doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mrs X’s car tyre. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to approach the court with her claim.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaints about children services matters. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. We cannot investigate the Police, CAFCASS or Court matters and Social Work England are better placed to consider social work professionalism complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning and coordination of roadworks in his area. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection issues because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that a child was unlawfully excluded from school. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaints about delay in issuing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plans, about poor communication and complaint handling and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a payment to reflect avoidable distress and time and trouble and loss of educational provision (specialist occupational therapy) caused by the delay in issuing a final amended plan after a tribunal order.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not dealt with road safety concerns properly. The Council is at fault because it did not properly consider the issues he raised. Mr X did not suffer any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted fault and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to issue an amended Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is unlikely, we could add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Any injustice caused to the complainant regarding comments the Council made about her is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs X and B?

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the delay. If Miss X wants to challenge the content of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan, then it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide education when it knew her son could not return to his allocated school due to medical reasons. I have found no fault in the Council’s decision not to put in place alternative provision. The Council failed to ensure the therapeutic provision the school agreed to put into place was followed up on. An apology, payment to Mrs B and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the matters complained about are not separable from matters that either have been considered during court proceedings, or could have reasonably been raised in court.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council's occupational therapy service delayed in responding to his requests for a reassessment and initially produced a report which did not adequately describe his needs. Mr C says he has lived in an unsuitable property for longer than necessary which has had a harmful impact on his health. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete a reassessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.