LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about foster care processes as she has appealed to the Independent Review Mechanism.

Summary: Mr C complained to us about the way a care provider, commissioned by the Council, supported his son in supported living. We have found fault with some issues Mr C complained about, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to him and his son.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the contents of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the contents of the EHCP to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: A Care Provider, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged failings in the management of Mr Y’s care before the involvement of this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. There is no evidence to show the Council took appropriate action in response to the events or what action it took to ensure safe effective care provision for other residents similarly affected and for those whom it continues to commission placements.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly maintain a drainage system causing his pond to silt up. We have found fault by the Council in its complaint handling and in the time taken to confirm it was responsible for the drainage system. We consider the agreed action of an apology, £300 and actions the Council has already agreed about maintenance of the drainage system provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council delayed in providing her son with an Education, Health and Social Care Plan naming a suitable school. Also, that it failed to provide him with suitable education while she appealed the content of that plan. We uphold a complaint the Council took too long to finalise the plan. This delay caused both Mrs C and her son injustice. The Council accepts this finding and at the end of this statement we set out the action it agreed to remedy that injustice. The statement also explains why we are unable to investigate or uphold other parts of Mrs C’s complaint.

Summary: Ms G complains the Council did not complete an occupational therapy (OT) assessment or complete a thorough educational psychology (EP) assessment as part of her son, F’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. She says this means his needs have not been adequately assessed and he is not receiving the provision he requires. We do not intend to find fault by the Council in how it assessed F’s OT needs, as it did so in line with the relevant code of practice. Complaints about provision in an EHC plan should be appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her children and delayed assessing their special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council reviewed its decision following a mediation agreement and how it failed to consider its duty to arrange suitable alternative education. It agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her children, pay them a financial remedy and review its policy and practice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child and family assessment. This is because we could not achieve the central outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council completed an assessment for an Education Health and Care plan for her child Y. Mrs X has appealed to the Tribunal, and we cannot investigate the same issues. We can’t decide whether any delay in the Council finalising the Education Health and Care plan has caused an injustice until the Tribunal has reached a conclusion.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council carried out social care assessments for Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of her son, Mr P, about the actions of Somerset County Council (the Council) and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The complaint was about the Council’s adult care services and the Trust’s mental health and complaints services. We have upheld elements of the complaint relating to social care needs assessment, claims about Mrs M’s behaviour, and complaint handling. We have not upheld other parts of the complaint. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of her son, Mr P, about the actions of Somerset County Council (the Council) and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The complaint was about the Council’s adult care services and the Trust’s mental health and complaints services. We have upheld elements of the complaint relating to social care needs assessment, claims about Mrs M’s behaviour, and complaint handling. We have not upheld other parts of the complaint. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s decision to uphold a complaint against her and subsequently remove her from the Community Micro-Enterprise Programme (CMEP). Ms C said this resulted in her being very distressed and has affected her business. We found that, although there was some fault in the implementation of the process the Council followed, this did not affect the outcome of the process. The Council has agreed to apologise for any distress.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of advertising banners placed on or near the highway. This is because any injustice caused to Mr X is insufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss P’s complaint about it failing to properly consider her request for her daughter to start reception in September 2022 rather than 2021. In its decision letter, it failed to refer to her evidence and referred to evidence it says it did not consider. The letter failed to properly explain how it reached the decision and the reasons why it was in the child’s best interests. It also failed to deal with her complaint properly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.