LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council and Integrated Care Board did not deliver the provisions of her daughter, Y’s Education and Health and Care Plan. This led to frustration and distress for Mrs X. We found fault with both the Council and Integrated Care Board leading to the distress Mrs X has suffered. The Council and Integrated Care Board agreed to take actions to remedy this situation for Mrs X.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s involvement with his family following a referral it received regarding his young child. There is fault because the Council did not speak with Mr Y about the referral and then created a safety plan which was one-sided and contained assumptions about Mr Y’s ability to parent. This caused avoidable and significant distress which the Council has already remedied with an apology, a symbolic payment of £1350 and reminders to relevant staff. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts are better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child, Y, within the statutory time limits. She also complained of poor communication from the Council. We found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the statutory timescales and for its poor communication. This fault caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise Miss X’s distress and make changes to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The person has died and so we can provide no remedy for their injustice. The provider has already apologised to the complainant to acknowledge their distress. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed providing their child, Y with an education placement or an appropriate education following an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review in 2023. The Council was at fault. It failed to keep oversight of Y’s education or decide whether alternative provision was appropriate when they were out of school. It then failed to ensure Y could attend their named placement in the EHC Plan. It meant Y went without education for three terms. The Council also failed to issue an amended EHC Plan naming a post-16 placement in Y’s phase transfer year. The

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed bin collections. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct by a social worker while on sick leave. We have no power to make findings about misconduct, or to make recommendations about disciplinary action against the Council’s staff. Social Work England is better placed than us to consider complaints of professional misconduct by social workers, as it has powers we lack.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place her children on a child protection plan. The Council has apologised and offered a small remedy payment for not completing assessments sooner and the impact this had on Mrs X’s family. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating the matter further.

Summary: The Council failed to investigate Ms X’s complaint using the children’s statutory complaints procedure when it should have done. It also delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint through its corporate complaints procedure. The Council’s faults have caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. In recognition of this, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £250 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: A complained about the way the Council dealt with their request for adult social care. They also complained the Council sent an incorrect invoice for care which was never received. Based on current evidence, we found the Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council incorrectly deducted the value of benefits she claimed from payments it made to her for caring for two children under a residency order between 2010 and 2019. We ended the investigation because Ms X’s complaint was late and there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child protection decision by the Council as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s court ordered 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: There is evidence that consideration was given to Mrs X’s eligibility for CHC funding while she was in hospital and subsequently. The first four weeks of her residential placement were funded by the NHS but afterwards she was responsible for funding her own care.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to deliver the special educational provision in her child, Z’s Education Health and Care Plan and provide them with a suitable education. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: make sure Z received all the special education provision in their Plan and properly investigate Z’s circumstances when they were struggling to attend school. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Miss Y, making payments to acknowledge the distress caused and impact on Z, and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns about Mrs X’s children. This is because the actions of the Council relate to the conduct of court proceedings about Mrs X’s children. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her grandchild, Y. Miss X said the Council delayed sharing information about Y being subject to child protection planning with her. The Council was at fault which put Y at risk of harm. The Council has already upheld Miss X’s complaint, apologised and agreed to put in place staff training, improve its service and reimburse costs to Miss X. The Council will also pay Miss X a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty caused to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct when Mr X tried to contact it in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate peripheral matters, including complaint-handling, when we cannot investigate the substantive matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a new tree and plaque planted in a green space close to the complainants home. This is because we do not consider the matter has caused the complainant a significant injustice.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his property is being damaged by a Council owned tree. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court if needed.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not consider her complaint about Special Guardianship and foster payments for a child she cares for through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration caused to her, and consider her complaint through the correct procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils liability for damage and maintenance of a leisure facility. We cannot decide liability for damage to property and Mrs X would need to make a claim for this to the Council’s insurers. Furthermore, we could not instruct the Council on how to maintain its leisure facilities and there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome we can achieve in investigating.