LGO Individual Decisions

Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in relation to her children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before a court.

Summary: Mrs D complained about delay in the issuing of her son’s education, health and care plan. We found fault which has caused a loss of special educational needs provision, delayed appeal rights and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs D to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for Mrs X’s child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. We cannot investigate the contents of the final EHC plan issued or the education in place. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has reviewed Miss X’s son’s special educational needs. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal and the issues she raises are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential breaches of contract between the council and a care provider. It is reasonable to expect the care provider to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Council charges for assistive equipment and errors in its invoicing since 2018. Her complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to add to its records that a court document about Miss X had incorrectly stated she had twice declined mother and baby placements. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to deal with matters of alleged data inaccuracy as it has powers to require rectification and impose penalties that we lack.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about action the Council has taken against Mr X as a landlord. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to a residential property tribunal, and we will not consider the matter instead.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was a delay of 15 months in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after a needs assessment. A child did not receive any education for two terms and there is no evidence of the Council reaching a proper decision that the 2.5 days a week provision for another term was suitable. An apology, financial remedy and consulting a school on a request for the child to repeat a school year remedies the injustice.

Summary: Ms J complained about the time the Council took in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for her child. She said the Council also failed to provide alternative educational provision in the meantime. We found the Council at fault for the time it took to issue a plan and to implement tuition. The Council agreed to make a recognition payment to Ms J and her child, and to carry out service improvements to avoid this happening again.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a complaint she raised about the way the Council completed an assessment of her family and arranged support for her child, Y, through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to complete the children’s statutory complaint procedure which caused frustration and distress. The Council will complete the statutory complaint procedure without further delay.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate financial support when she was a kinship carer (also known as a family and friends foster carer) for her grandchildren. Ms X said she financially supported the children as well as caring for them, which had a financial impact. She said it impacted her mental health and caused unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission because there is no evidence of fault causing injustice. The complaint also affects all or most of the population of the area and so is out of jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council reduced her care package without properly assessing her needs. We have found fault in the way the Council re-assessed Mr B’s needs for care and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, re-assess Mrs B’s needs and provide her with an updated support plan.

Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council dealt her child, Z’s special educational needs support and alternative provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: complete Z’s educational health and care needs assessment within the statutory timescales; provide Z with a suitable education and monitor the delivery of Z’s first education, health and care plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y, making payments to recognise the worry and distress caused and the impact on Z of the missed education, and service improvement

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to publicly consult on the resurfacing of a local bridleway and failed to carry out his requested reasonable adjustments. We have ended this investigation because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is nothing worthwhile we can achieve by pursuing this matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide assistance when the complainant reported concerns about his neighbour’s building works.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X being prevented from using a disabled toilet. Mr X wants the Council to provide him with compensation and accept it has breached equality legislation. We cannot achieve this outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an assessment. This is because the matter is currently being considered by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a forthcoming care assessment and the complainant’s perception this will not be adequate. This is because the care assessment has not yet been carried out and so any injustice to the complainant is speculative. There is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused serious loss, harm or distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s long term empty premium charges policy and how it has been applied to Mr X’s property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no indication of fault in the way the policy has been applied to Mr X’s case so we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s experience applying to the Council for a concessionary travel pass. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received in 2022. Much of the complaint is late and there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. We could not achieve anything further by investigating other matters, and other bodies are better placed to consider parts of the complaint.