LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home, and specifically about the mismanagement of medication. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. There is not enough outstanding injustice to justify our involvement; the Council apologised to recognise the impact of failings in service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to install safety measures on the highway near the school where she teaches, and refusing to accept the current situation as a risk to her school’s pupils. Miss X’s has not brought her complaint as a member of the public so we cannot accept it. We also cannot investigate complaints from public bodies.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child’s transport needs, did not communicate effectively and caused delays in arranging suitable transport. We find the Council at fault for failing to reflect key information from the application in its risk assessment, and for failing to keep Mrs X updated. As a result, unsuitable transport was arranged, and Mrs X incurred avoidable costs to ensure her child could attend education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan after a needs assessment. There was 6 months delay by the Council, which was fault. A payment remedies the injustice to Mrs X. There was also delay in providing Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy provision, which could have been provided separately to the school setting which Mrs X disputed at tribunal. An apology and payment remedies the frustration and distress, and loss of provision to Y, the child.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational provision for a child. Some of the complaint is late, Miss X had an appeals right and it was reasonable to expect her to use them. Additionally, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, because it upheld her complaint and has provided a suitable remedy for her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make alternative provision when the complainant’s daughter stopped attending school. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the Tribunal, and this places the matter outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the child protection actions of the Council. The matters he complains of are matters he could have mentioned during court action, or are closely related to those matters. Some matters directly concern part of the court process, and we cannot investigate them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to subject access requests. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child (Y’s) blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this. The Council considered Y’s application and appeal in line with the relevant law and policies without fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it reviewed and amended Mrs X’s child W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for delay securing the provision in that Plan and for poor complaints handling. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant she had to go to undue time and trouble pursuing her complaint. It also meant W missed out on provision they should have had. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X, pay her £1100 and confirm the name of the member of staff who will act as her single point of contact in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his subject access requests and his requests for information to be amended. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with these matters.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council and NHS organisations failed to properly consider aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act when his daughter, Miss Y, left hospital in 2020. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to achieve more due to the time that has passed since the events complained about happened. Miss Y has also since had assessments and is receiving aftercare.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns she raised about one of her mother’s carers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council named an unsuitable college in Miss Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or that it failed to deliver the content of the EHC Plan to Miss Y. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about obstructive parking outside his property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child for over three years. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to review or update 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 22 May 2023 to 28 August 2024. We also found fault with the Council delaying by 17 months outside the statutory timescales in reviewing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has also accepted it failed to provide provision to Mrs X’s child from their Education, Health and Car

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision and support available for the complainant’s daughter. This is because the Ombudsman’s intervention would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: Mrs X complained the NHS Trust and the Council discharged her father from hospital into an unsuitable care home. We found fault by the NHS Trust, but we could not say this would have led to a different outcome. The NHS Trust has already accepted the fault, but we recommended it apologises to Mrs X for the uncertainty caused. We did not find fault by the Council’s actions, but we did find fault with how it dealt with Mrs X’s complaint. We made recommendations to address this.

Summary: Mrs H complained a Care Provider wrongly told her that her mother, Mrs G, would not have to pay for care she received at home for six weeks. We did not uphold the complaint. While there was some evidence to support Mrs H’s account and some poor complaint handling by the Provider, this did not cause Mrs G or Mrs H an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed completing her child’s Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its duty to provide alternative education for Mrs X’s child, Y, or document its decision-making. However, we cannot say the Council’s decision would have been different, but for these faults. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty this caused. It also agreed to provide guidance to its officers.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to seek advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP) as part of its Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment of her child Y because it is connected to her appeal to the Tribunal. The Council was at fault for not issuing Y’s plan within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the uncertainty and delayed appeal rights this caused.