LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to ensure her daughter received provision set out in her Education, Health and Care plan when on a reduced timetable. It failed to consider whether it needed to provide suitable alternative education and did not meet the statutory timescales following her annual review. The Council agreed to send Miss Y an apology, pay £3,000 for the distress caused, remind officers about the triggering of the section 19 duty for children out of school with a plan, and ensure processes are in place to monitor and review children with

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council carried out financial assessments for her daughter’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in reviewing Mr X’s adult son, Mr Y’s, needs assessment and care and support plan and for failing to provide overnight respite. It also delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X and other family members significant frustration and distress and meant they had to provide unpaid support, without a break, for an extended period. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make payments to Mr X and other family members. It has also agreed to provide evidence of the improvements it made following Mr X’s complaint including to ensure

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care, and the support for a carer. This is because it is a late complaint with no good reasons why the complaint could not have been raised sooner.

Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns about her care and support plan. The Council addressed each of Ms B’s concerns and liaised with her and the care provider. It also reviewed her care and support plan and made sure it was sufficient to meet her needs. The Council took too long to complete the review however, and it did not handle the referral for advocacy properly. This caused Ms B uncertainty and put her to time and trouble. The Council will apologise to Ms B and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also remind staff of the process for making a referra

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s (X) education. The Council apologised for its poor handling of her enquiry about a personal budget, and it agreed it caused delays in the annual review process for his Education, Health, and Care plan. This was fault which caused Mrs B distress and uncertainty. However, we cannot say X experienced an injustice as a result. The Council will make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact its faults had on Mrs B. There was no fault on how the Council considered its alternative provision duty, and other parts of the complaint w

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her son, Y. We found fault by the Council as it did not properly check what provision was in place for Y even though it was aware of his situation. As a result, Y missed out on education and his welfare suffered. Ms X also experienced stress and financial loss. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy in recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X and Y.

because the Council failed to seek his views on his daughter’s original Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post adoption services provided by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. Additionally, any fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint has not caused him a significant injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child Z’s educational provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in its:

Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed reviewing Mr X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and subsequently, delayed securing a placement. It failed to provide Y with some provision including speech and language therapy (SALT). The Council also delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty and Y was without a placement for a prolonged period of time. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it would make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. The Council has agreed it will also offer a further apology to

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant’s daughter within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her child with suitable education when they were out of school and delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We found the Council was at fault. As a result Ms X had to wait longer than she should have for a decision on her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and her child has missed education. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X for the loss of her child’s education and the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a ‘peace of mind charge’ levied at the extra care accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision on an insurance claim as the complainant’s legal entitlement to compensation is ultimately only a matter a court can determine.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delays during the annual review process and issuing of a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s son, Y. These delays caused Y to miss out on occupational therapy provision. The Council has agreed to remedy Y’s injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his care assessment. Mr X says this meant he did not receive suitable support which has impacted his health. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her children D and P received the special educational needs provision in their Education, Health, and Care Plans. D and P did not receive all the provision in their Plans and the Council failed to properly investigate when Mrs X raised concerns about this. This meant D and P missed provision, and caused distress to D, P, and their parents. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a ‘child in need’ plan for his child. This is mainly because we could not add significantly to the previous investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of his child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to a tribunal, and because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms Y complained about how the Council charged her son, Mr X, for a contribution to his care and support and tried to collect a debt from him. There was fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X and Ms Y, with some of the action it took to recover the debt and how it assessed Mr X’s claim for some expenses. This caused Ms Y some avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Ms Y a financial remedy and reassess Mr X’s contribution. It also agreed to review some of its practices.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not provide suitable education for her child when they were out of school and delayed carrying out a review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. As a result her child missed out on education and has fallen behind their peers. We have found the Council at fault as there was a period where it should have put in place education for Mrs X’s child. The Council also delayed carrying out an annual review. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments for the loss of education and distress caused.

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about assessments for continuing healthcare and disability-related expenditure. On the continuing healthcare matter, this is because we cannot consider NHS matters. On the disability-related expenditure matter, this is because the injustice is insufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.