LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y’s education. The Council was at fault for not considering Miss X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused and consider her complaint further.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment within statutory time limits, failed to refund her for the costs of a private report she commissioned, failed to secure all educational provision for Y, and communicated poorly. The Council was at fault for delays in completing the assessment and in responding to Mrs X’s request for a personal budget. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to implement an order issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make sure Mr Y was cared for properly, while in foster care. The Council was at fault. It failed to properly handle Mrs X’s complaint via the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mrs X, and Mr Y, have not had the opportunity for a proper investigation into the complaint about Mr Y’s care. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and process the complaint via the children’s statutory complaint procedure, without delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review. The Council have offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the withdrawal of home-to-school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational travel support. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to provide her child the provision detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide the special educational provision detailed in the Education, Health and Care Plan. This has caused Ms B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, consider reimbursement of Ms B’s costs and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to produce an adequate care plan for Mrs Y and did not arrange care to meet her needs. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance and traffic management matters. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his information requests. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to investigate the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway verge maintenance because the court is better placed to consider to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the process of assessing the complainant’s child’s education, health and care needs, and in failing to secure provision to meet those needs. The complaint concerns matters about which the complainant used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Tribunal, could have used her right to appeal, or are not separable from such matters.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council assessed Y’s Education, Health and Care needs and how it made alternative provision available to him while he was out of school. The Council was at fault for delays in securing alternative provision for Y, meaning he did not receive the education he was entitled to and causing frustration to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice.

Summary: The Council failed to keep under review whether its duties to provide alternative education to a child out of school applied. This likely caused the child to miss around a term of alternative education. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for a personal remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council unnecessarily delayed his mother’s discharge from hospital as it would not provide a 24-hour residential care home placement. Based on current evidence we have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter who are better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Miss B by the Council. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X has appealed to a tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Council-commissioned support service allegedly failing to provide reasonable adjustments for Mr X. He has begun court action about the matter, so the law says we cannot also consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Mr X’s application for travel assistance for his child Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed financially assessing his mother, who I will refer to as Mrs C; gave him inaccurate financial information; and referred to mental capacity assessments as a formality. There was fault by the Council. It delayed allocating Mrs C’s case for a care assessment to be carried out. Because of the fault, there was a short delay in Mrs C receiving funding from the Council after her finances fell below the upper capital limit. This caused distress and worry to Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B. It has also agreed to send us evidence of a review

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for its delay and any dispute over the contents of the final Plan is a matter for the appeals process.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide advocacy for him as part of his care assessment and planning and failed to provide him with suitable care and support. The Council was not at fault.