LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint about suffering hate and derogatory behaviour by his relative’s carers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s responses and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child protection assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed issuing her daughter’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a review. The Council did not issue the EHC Plan within the correct timescales and did not follow its complaints procedure. Mrs X suffered uncertainty and avoidable distress and her complaint was delayed. The Council offered to pay Mrs X £500 for her time and trouble and £500 for avoidable distress. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a court report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a dropped kerb application at a neighbouring property and for failing to respond to reports of illegal parking. We do not find fault with how the Council considered the dropped kerb application. We find the Council at fault for not responding to Miss X’s reports of illegal parking, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and respond to Miss X’s reports.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s (X) education when she was unable to attend her school placement, and it caused delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The Council accepted it had caused delays in the statutory process and failed to act on an offer from her preferred school placement. We also found fault in its failure to provide some suitable and timely alternative provision, and delays in its complaints handling. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Mrs C and X.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) regarding a safeguarding referral the Council made to a professional regulator and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). There is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed agreeing to, then completing, an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and this prevented her son, B, from accessing support. We have found that the Council is at fault for the delays. It has agreed to pay £500 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience caused to Mrs X and B.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed providing Alternative Provision of education for her child. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed production of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mrs X’s child from 30 November 2023 to 26 February 2024. We also found fault with the Council delaying production of Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan by 10 weeks outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 for the frustration, inconvenience and lost opport

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to consider a complaint from him, or its decision to place restrictions on his contact. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information provided to the courts because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to award transport for her son Mr Y who is over 19 and has an Education Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had failed to carry out transport appeal properly, communicate with her and respond to her complaint. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision about transport for Mr Y and in the way it handled Mrs X’s appeal. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X as she was distressed and could not be satisfied her appeal was properly considered. The Council has agreed to apologise

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing the review of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. Because of this delay, she reported that her daughter stopped receiving some speech and language therapy provision and further provision through an occupational therapist. She also confirmed the Council failed to provide a tutor. We find the Council at fault which caused Mrs X and her daughter injustice. We propose the Council should make payments and apologise to Mrs X and her daughter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council failing to maintain the road where she lives. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to apply to court for an order requiring the Council to repair the road.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and for the time it took to provide a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This meant Mrs X’s child had to wait longer than they should have to receive the support they were entitled to. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a financial remedy.

the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education Health and Care plan. The Council apologised and offered a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to both Mrs X and her son.

Summary: Mrs X complained her child missed Year 6 of education with only limited part-time Alternative Provision of education at the end of the year. We found fault with the Council failing to suitably consider its Section 19 duty for 8 weeks in the academic year 2023/2024. We also found fault with the Council failing to meet its complaint timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for any avoidable frustrations its fault caused and pay Mrs X £600 in recognition of her child’s missed educational provision caused by its fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since May 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed production of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and handled her communication poorly. We found fault with the Council delaying for 13 months in production of the Education, Health and Care Plan and for complaint handling delays. We did not find fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mrs X’s child. The Council has offered £1,000 for the distress, time and trouble its delays have caused and offered £8,658 for Mrs X’

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s care needs assessment of his relative Mrs Y and it not offering a Deferred Payment Arrangement (DPA). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son P and daughter R received suitable education and special educational needs support, after the family moved to the Council’s area. The Council failed to pay a financial remedy it promised Mrs X for education P and R missed in a previous school year; the Council agreed to now pay this. Fault by the Council also meant R missed education and special educational needs support in the next school year, Mrs X experienced avoidable time and trouble complaining, and the whole family experienced distress. The Council agreed to apologise and p

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw school transport assistance for Mrs X’s daughter. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process and about the Council’s poor communication. The Council apologised and offered a £1,000 symbolic payment in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about advocacy costs because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding officer substantiating a safeguarding concern in a matter involving Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.