LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council not completing a Care Act assessment in February 2025 as promised. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for this fault, which provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We will not investigate the other part of Ms X complaint because it is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure appropriate educational provision for the complainant’s daughter while she has been unable to attend school. Our intervention is unlikely to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We have upheld part of this complaint about delay in issuing Miss X’s child’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X and her child. We will not investigate part of her complaint about the content of the plan or locating a school for her child, because Miss X has a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect her to use it.

Summary: Dr C complained about a Mental Health Act assessment. We consider Dr C’s complaint is late. In any event, we are unlikely to find fault with the issues complained about.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y. Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide their grandson, Z, with a suitable education since September 2023. They also complained the Council failed to reassess Z’s need and issue an appealable decision. Mr and Mrs Y also complained the Council failed to ensure Z received the provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. They also complained about issues with how the school handled Z’s behaviours. Mr and Mrs Y said this distressed Z and his family, and he missed out on education and EHC Plan provision. There was fault in

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Education Health and Care Plan annual reviews. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply to older events. And it is unlikely we would find Miss X has been caused any significant injustice by any failure to meet the annual review regulations in 2023 and 2024.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure take action in response to her complaint about a breach of planning permission. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it considered her concerns but decided the development was built in accordance with the approved plans. In the absence of fault in the process, we are unable to recommend the Council takes action to restore Ms X’s privacy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to concerns he raised about his children’s welfare

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. We cannot investigate her complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment because she has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly deducted child benefit from her Special Guardianship Allowance. We did not uphold the complaint. The Council is entitled to carry out a means test because Mrs X receives additional income as well as universal credit. There is no blanket policy as the Council has invited her to provide information about her outgoings and financial commitments. This is in line with regulations and so there is no fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son and failed to provide Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy provision set out in his Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was fault by the Council and missing provision over a prolonged period. We recommended an apology and an appropriate payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with her care and that of her child. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing some of the recommendations from the Children Act complaints procedure. This caused Miss Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make a payment and send us an action plan detailing how it will complete the recommendations.

Summary: We upheld part of Ms X’s complaint regarding her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and about the Council’s communication because the Council agreed to apologise and act to clarify its communication with her. We cannot investigate most of Ms X’s complaint because she appealed to a court and a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Summary: Ms O complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan, and failed to provide Ms X’s child with suitable full-time education. Ms O said this caused Ms X distress, it took time, had a financial impact, and meant her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault for delays issuing the plan which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about free school meals as we cannot investigate how schools provide them.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council handled a school admissions request. The Council has arranged an appeal and there is nothing significant further we could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation. It would also be reasonable for Miss X to use her right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Summary: Mrs X complained of the Council’s handling of her child (Y’s) Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan during a phase transfer. This included poor communication and a failure to issue Y’s amended final EHC Plan by 15 February in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault for its communication and the three-month delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights to the SEND tribunal. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise this.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s section 7 court report and contact arrangements with his child. We have no jurisdiction to look at matters subject to court proceedings.

Summary: The Council failed to arrange alternative provision for several months when Ms X’s child, Z, was no longer able to attend their school. The Council also significantly delayed finalising Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan following their annual review. The Council’s faults have caused four months of missed provision for Z and caused uncertainty and distress to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1,450 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to find a school her Miss X’s child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. The Council assessed the person needed residential care, which they received, and which the Council assessed the person could pay for. An Ombudsman investigation would be unlikely to reach a different outcome or achieve the outcome the complainant wants of a refund of care charges.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales in reviewing and producing his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained about the way in which the Council handled his complaint. We found fault with the Council’s delays in handling both the Education, Health and Care Plan review and Mr X’s complaint. The Council offered £200 for it’s poor complaint handling and £300 for the delays in reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan. This was a suitable symbolic gesture with an apology for the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.