LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint that her son, B, failed to make progress at school. We do not have the expertise to assess whether he made as much progress as could be expected so we cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Ms M’s complaint about the reasons the Council recorded for the breakdown of B’s school placement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging staff failed to safeguard the complainant’s late relative. This is because the matter is being considered by the coroner, so, at present, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint about a councillor who blocked him from their social media account. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about the care of his child as we are not able to investigate the Council’s actions regarding his child. This is because there has been court action concerning the safeguarding of Mr X’s child. That means a legal bar now prevents us investigating these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council did not provide appropriate support and information for her father’s financial assessment. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about adult social care support when the person using the service, his relative Mr E, came home from hospital. The Council correctly assessed and offered support which Mr E declined. Mr D had been clear he should be present, but we cannot say the outcome would be different. Mr E did not ask for Mr D to be present or say the assessment could not take place without him.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection decisions taken by the Council concerning Mr X and his wife after their child suffered injuries. We are prevented from doing so by a legal bar brought into play by the matter having been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed Occupational Therapy. This is because the Council has accepted fault, apologised, and said it will ensure the provision is delivered. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care her late father Mr Y received from a Council-commissioned care home. The main injustice would be to Mr Y, who has died so we cannot provide them with any remedy. While it is upsetting for Miss X, there is not remaining significant injustice to justify us investigating.

Summary: We found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to class a nearby property for residents with disabilities as a residential home. Evidence showed the Council raised neighbours’ concerns about disturbance and behaviour from with the provider.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to ensure Mr X’s care provider assigned regular drivers for his mobility car, delayed providing Mr X with medication, failed to ensure Mr X received appropriate personal care, delayed arranging a repair of Mr X’s toilet, allowed the care provider to slander him and delayed considering his complaint. There is some evidence Mr X missed out on access to the community, of missed medication, of inadequate records of bathing and of delay responding to the complaint. An apology, payment to Mr X and Mr Y, alongside procedural remedies, is satisfactory remedy

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for the complainant’s daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative educational provision for her child (Y) after they became unwell and unable to attend school in the 2023/2024 school year. The Council was at fault for failing to consider alternative educational provision when Mrs X raised attendance problems in late April 2024. However, this did not cause an injustice as Y was not absent for 15 days or more which is a requirement for the Council to arrange alternative provision. Y also went on study leave five weeks after Mrs X raised attendance problems and any alternative education provisi

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because we cannot investigate any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Y’s complaint about changes made to an educational psychologist’s report concerning her child. This is because it is closely linked to her SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because another body is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council proposed an unsuitable care placement for her adult son, Mr Y, which put him at risk of homelessness and caused her distress and financial loss. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an alleged data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters, such as this, are best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to reimburse her for the full cost of transporting her child to their education placement in 2023. We have found no evidence of fault. The Council offered Ms X a voluntary payment which she accepted at the time and did not appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council and commissioned Care Provider causing a rift between her and her daughter. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handled the safeguarding concerns about their grandmother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for handling Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns. This caused them frustration and upset. The Council has apologised and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the injustice caused by fault. We do not recommend anything further.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable education or make appropriate alternative provision for them. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: consider its duty to make arrangements for alternative provision for Z in April 2023, properly consider the type of alternative provision suitable for Z in December 2023/January 2024 and complete Z’s Education Health and Care needs assessment within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the d

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to put suitable alternative provision in place for her child, Z, when they stopped attending school in September 2022. We cannot investigate some parts of Mrs X’s complaint and the Council was not at fault in the remaining part we can consider.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide Direct Payments to pay for wrap around care for her son who could not attend after school provision in the community due to his complex needs. As a result Mrs X has had to privately employ a personal assistant to care for her son. We have ended our investigation as we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed reviewing his son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and failed to provide an appropriate education since it decided he needed a special school placement in summer 2023. Mr X also complained the Council did not provide the special educational provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It will make a payment to Mr X to recognise the loss of educational provision to Y and the distress caused to himself. The Council will also review how it ensures provision is in place for children with EHC Plans where there is no suitable