LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained West Sussex County Council failed to provide her late husband, Mr X, with alternative domiciliary care after a care agency ended its contract. She said this meant he had to go into residential care in one of Saffronland Homes’ nursing homes. Mrs X says he received poor care there from both the nursing home and Maywood Health Centre. Mrs X says Mr X was unhappy in the care home and considers he would still be alive, had he received better care. We will not investigate this complaint. Parts of the complaint are late. For other parts, it would have been reasonable for Mr

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to cease his daughter’s college placement and Education, Health and Care Plan and its communications and complaints handling. The substantive matters are appealable, or could have been appealed, to the SEND Tribunal. The other complaints do not warrant investigation because there is either not enough evidence of fault or injustice or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: Mrs X complained West Sussex County Council failed to provide her late husband, Mr X, with alternative domiciliary care after a care agency ended its contract. She said this meant he had to go into residential care in one of Saffronland Homes’ nursing homes. Mrs X says he received poor care there from both the nursing home and Maywood Health Centre. Mrs X says Mr X was unhappy in the care home and considers he would still be alive, had he received better care. We will not investigate this complaint. Parts of the complaint are late. For other parts, it would have been reasonable for Mr

Summary: Mrs X complained West Sussex County Council failed to provide her late husband, Mr X, with alternative domiciliary care after a care agency ended its contract. She said this meant he had to go into residential care in one of Saffronland Homes’ nursing homes. Mrs X says he received poor care there from both the nursing home and Maywood Health Centre. Mrs X says Mr X was unhappy in the care home and considers he would still be alive, had he received better care. We will not investigate this complaint. Parts of the complaint are late. For other parts, it would have been reasonable for Mr

Summary: The Council delayed issuing Mrs X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review, failed to ensure Y received all the provision in their EHC Plan and failed to clearly explain payments made into Y’s personal budget. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make payments to acknowledge the missed provision and frustration she was caused by the delays and budget issues. It has also agreed to write to Mrs X clearly setting out the payments made and how they relate to Y’s personal budget as set out in their Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with X’s backdated direct payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr B says the Council delayed invoicing him for outstanding client contributions. There is evidence the Council delayed telling Mr B about some of the arrears due but for the rest there is no evidence Mr B told the Council he had received a backdated benefit award. The Council failed to complete an annual financial assessment in 2023 and failed to consider whether to exercise its discretion to waive or reduce the arrears. The Council’s failures caused Mr B distress and left him with arrears. An apology to Mr B, agreement to write off some of the arrears and consideration of what to do

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council’s delay in carrying out a financial assessment. investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to amend an Education Health and Care plan following Annual Review. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and matters relating to the content of the Education Health and Care plan cannot therefore be investigated.

Summary: Miss Z on behalf of her mother, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to provide information about the cost of a care home, delayed in completing the financial assessment and sending an invoice and then wrongly assessed Ms X’s savings. There is no fault in the Council’s calculations but it did delay completing this. The apology already provided by the Council is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to apply a property disregard because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a large pothole which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed invoicing for Mrs Y and her late husband’s care, and gave no explanation or context for the charges. Mr X said the Council is failing to meet the communication needs of vulnerable client groups. There was fault causing injustice when the Council delayed and incorrectly completed Mrs Y’s financial assessment, and when it failed to give her clear and timely charging information. The Council will complete a financial re-assessment and provide Mrs Y a symbolic financial remedy for the avoidable distress suffered.

Summary: We found the Council delayed issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to provide alternative education between March 2024 and September 2024. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the impact.

Summary: Mrs H complained that the Council did not ensure her son was receiving alternative education after he was unable to attend school. And it delayed reviewing his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint because of both the Council not considering its alternative education duties and a delay in revising the Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the social worker allocated to his child’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide alternative education after her child stopped attending school, only considered making amendments to her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan after giving her a decision not to amend the Plan and did not respond to some of her communication. There was some fault with how the Council considered whether to provide alternative education to Mrs X’s child, however this did not cause injustice. The Council was not at fault for discussing changes to the Plan after it decided not to amend it. The Council was at fault for not responding to Mrs X’

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its children’s services involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings

Mrs C complained the Council failed to properly consider the decision to remove funding for transport to day support for her son, Mr D, because he had a Motability car. Mrs C says the Council’s decision has resulted in added pressure on her and her husband; and costs neither they, nor Mr D, can meet.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to provide services to meet her family’s needs. The Council is at fault for failing to record actions and complete a carer’s assessment. This has caused uncertainty and frustration to Ms C. To put things right the Council will apologise to Ms C, make her a symbolic payment, reassess her needs as a carer and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to extend a vehicle crossing outside Ms X’s property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because parts of the complaint are late

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial support for a Special Guardian. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. Nor will we investigate the Council’s refusal to consider a complaint about this matter, because it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision to refuse.

Summary: The Council delayed completing Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and then failed to secure the provision in the Plan. It also failed to arrange suitable alternative provision when Y was unable to attend school. This caused Y to miss out on part of their education and caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to recognise the impact of its failings. It will also review its approach to delivering alternative provision when a child cannot attend school.