LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into concerns she raised against a care provider looking after her relative, Mrs E and counter-concerns raised by the Care Provider. We found some fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs C about the allegations, some delay in requesting evidence and reaching a conclusion and some confusion on the final complaint response. This caused Mrs C some distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her £200.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the failure to review Mr Y’s direct payment and to review his care and support plan. The Council has apologised, written off part of a debt and not reclaimed unauthorised expenses. This is an appropriate remedy for the avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her child with funded transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s blue badge application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of the care the Council commissioned care home provided to his late wife. He also complained about the Council’s handling of the retrospective safeguarding enquiry. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in completing the retrospective safeguarding enquiry and review and for its failure to keep Mr X properly updated. The care home was at fault for failing to follow its falls policy, its record keeping and for how it handled Mr X’s wife’s food and fluid intake. These faults caused Mr X uncertainty, distress and upset. The Council has agreed t

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late father, Mr Y, about the process the Council followed to decide to withdraw reablement in December 2024. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s decision of early March 2025 not to provide reablement. Mrs X also says the Council failed to respond to her complaint. Mrs X says this caused both her and Mr Y distress. We have found fault in the Councils failure to respond to Mrs X’s April complaint. We do not recommend any remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns, delayed providing support for his disabled son, and restricted the investigation of his concerns. The Council was at fault in how it responded to safeguarding concerns, delayed support under a Child in Need assessment, and handled both the complaints process and the Stage 2 investigation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s comments on a planning application because they did not affect the outcome or cause the complainant significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s requests for contact with a Looked After Child. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to take the matter to court.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council refused to provide a passenger assistant trained to administer emergency medication for her son Y who has special educational needs. She said this prevented Y from receiving the suitable home to school transport he was entitled to, it had a significant negative impact on Y’s development, and caused financial and emotional impact on the family. We find the Council at fault for the way it made its decision which caused distress. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and amend its policy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing Y’s annual review and failed to provide a personal budget for Y’s wheelchair which is outlined as specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council panel’s decision not to provide a personal budget to maintain Y’s wheelchair was flawed. The Council also delayed amending Y’s EHC Plan following a 2024 annual review by nine months. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused to her and reimburse her for wheelchair maintenance expenditure

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s decision his son did not meet the criteria for the

Summary: Ms X complained of significant delay in the Council’s assessment of her child for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council did not provide her child with a suitable education. The Council is at fault for failing to meet statutory timescales and failing to provide a suitable education. It has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by making a payment to Ms X for the loss of education and avoidable distress. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council conducted a parent carer needs assessment because its policy of not providing any funding to outcomes meant it did not offer him any practical support. We find fault with the Council’s policy and the way it carried out the assessment. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice, and to offer Mr X a new assessment.

Summary: Mr G complained about the Council’s delays with completing his child’s, Y, Child in Need assessment and its refusal to consider his complaint under stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There was fault by the Council for its delays in completing a Child in Need assessment for Y, but this caused no significant injustice to Y and Mr G. The Council was also at fault for its failure to complete all the Child in Need recommendations in a timely manner and its failure to properly consider Mr G’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure which caused injustice t

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole which he had reported to the Council. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Ms X alleges a Council officer disclosed her personal information to a third party. We will not investigate. This is because there is a more suitable agency better placed to investigate and because we would not be able to achieve the outcome sought.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that her car was severely damaged after hitting a large pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Ms B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a lack of support from the Council’s children’s services after he left the family home in 2020. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council delayed finding a school for her son in 2016. This is because Ms X’s complaint is late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide Speech and Language provision as outlined in her child’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to provide the provision and it failed to meet statutory timeframes in issuing a final EHC Plan following an annual review. This has caused a loss of provision and avoidable distress. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the loss of provision and it has agreed to remedy the avoidable distress caused by the delay in finalising the EHC Plan. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Miss X’s blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained about the actions of the Council when it investigated allegations made against Mr Y by a child. We have discontinued the investigation. This is because we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X and Mr Y are seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a damage claim as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to resort to court action for the remedy she seeks.