LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the remedy proposed by the Council in response to her complaint about its failure to secure the provision set out in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan and its failure to secure a suitable school place. We have found fault by the Council but consider the additional action it proposed of an apology and additional payment provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council did not offer support from children’s social care. This is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Dr X complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process and lack of education and support for her child’s special educational needs. We ended our investigation because the Council accepted it acted with fault and offered an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s care charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council told her she was entitled to council tax support (CTS), but later told her she was not, resulting in a large overpayment. There was fault by the Council. It delayed reviewing Mrs B’s CTS entitlement after it had received a notification her circumstances had changed, from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress and worry, and it has put a strain on her finances. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B, and provide us with evidence of the actions it says it has already taken to reduce delay

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has refused to reallocate her case to another Social Worker. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council incurred delays in providing an Education, Health and Care Plan for his son. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and frustration and hindered his son’s access to appropriate support and provision. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to issue the final Education, Health and Care Plan and provide an apology and financial remedy to Mr X. The Council has also agreed to provide regular reports to Cabinet and other appropriate senior committees regarding the progress made by its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities se

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed carrying out an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment and in issuing an EHC Plan and failed to put in place education for her son. The Council delayed carrying out the assessment and in issuing the final EHC plan. There is no fault in those parts of the complaint the Ombudsman can investigate about education provision. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy for her delayed appeal right and distress.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about charges for her mother’s residential care. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been brought to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions about the management of land it owns because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making and because we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it calculated Mrs X’s special guardianship

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y, and about the Council’s poor communication. This is because the Council upheld the complaint, apologised to Mr X, and offered him a £700 symbolic payment in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to respond to their contacts about caring for young family members when they were taken into care. They also complained about contact arrangements. We found there was some fault in communication and responsiveness. This caused upset and frustration. However, it did not lead to the children being placed with foster carers when this would not have otherwise been the case.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s education, health and care plan. There was fault which caused Mrs F to lose her appeal rights and uncertainty and distress in relation to her son’s SEN provision. The Council has agreed to issues the final plan and make a payment to Mrs F to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her request to install a controlled pedestrian crossing. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Ms X’s request, failing to explain its decision and failing to respond to her complaint. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and write to Ms X to properly explain its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council removed his relative from his care and investigated under its safeguarding procedures. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcomes requested.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint about his brother, Mr Y’s, care and treatment. There was a short break in Mr Y’s medication management. We also found Mr X was not informed about one of Mr Y’s Mental Health Act assessments. However, we have not found a significant injustice arising from these actions. There was fault with the Trust and the Council’s complaint handling, but sufficient steps have already been taken to address this.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mrs Y’s care and charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling in isolation when we are not considering the substantive matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because the Council has offered a new mobility assessment and will reassess the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to repossess an allotment. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered Ms X’s representations. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. In any case we could not achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s plans to develop a commercial property. There is no evidence of fault and we are unable to achieve the outcome he seeks to overturn the Council’s decision. Also, the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint about Freedom of Information requests.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes for completing an education, health and care assessment for her son and failed to provide him with access to suitable full-time education. Mrs B says this has impacted her son’s emotional and social wellbeing. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and issue the final education health and care Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council in relation to a private court matter. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay completing his Occupational Therapy assessment, and its poor communication. We find the Council at fault, which delayed Mr X receiving minor adaptations. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.