LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing an education, health and care (EHC) plan for the complainant’s son, causing distress. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy for this. However, there is no objective evidence to show the Council misled the complainant that it could convert a foreign special educational need (SEN) document into an EHC plan; and nor was the Council at fault for a delay in finding a school placement.

Summary: it is too late to investigate Ms P’s complaint the Council took too long to issue her son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. B has not received all the speech and language therapy in section F of his plan. We have recommended a symbolic remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her child with full time education since 2022. Ms X says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and take service improvement action.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the cancellation of care shifts by the NHS. This is because the matter complained of is not an administrative function of the Council.

Summary: We upheld most of Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child and about the Council’s poor communication because the Council upheld the complaints, apologised, and offered a £1,000 financial remedy. We could not investigate some of the complaint because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal.

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s, annual review and personal budget. We find the Council at fault for delays in the annual review process and for failing to review the personal budget at the agreed time. This caused Y and Miss B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss B and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not complete a care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, C, with a final Education, Health and Care Plan and has not provided them with suitable education. The Council is at fault. This has caused distress to Ms X and family and missed education for C. I have recommended remedies.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an adequate remedy for their complaint about its failure to ensure their child Y was receiving social care provision in her Education Health and Care Plan. They also complained about the way the Council dealt with their complaint. We found fault causing avoidable distress, frustration, time and trouble and a loss of social care support to which Y was entitled. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice and will provide the following: an apology, payments and evidence the Council has implemented changes to

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to offer his mother a choice of care homes within her personal budget. This resulted in the family paying top-up payments for care when this should not have been required. We found there was a failure to provide an appropriate choice of care placements. As a result, we recommended an apology and that the Council refunded all the top up payments made for his mother’s care. We also recommended the Council should brief staff to ensure they understand the relevant regulations. We did not find there was direct injustice to Mr X’s father.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed finalising his child’s amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and provided no support when his child could not attend school. This caused distress and meant the family had to fund therapy for their child. The Council was at fault over its communication and delays. The Council was not at fault over the alternative provision it put in place. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a symbolic financial remedy for the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delays during the annual review of Mrs X’s son’s (Y’s) Education, Health and Care Plan, failing to properly consider its section 19 duty and poor communication with Mrs X and Y’s school. The fault resulted in the delay of Mrs X’s appeal rights, caused Y to miss education and caused avoidable distress for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s reduction of an adult social care personal budget. The Council followed a proper process of assessment, completed by a suitable member of staff, to decide how to meet the complainant's needs. There is not enough evidence of fault, and no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise the Council’s decision, even though the complainant strongly disagrees with it.

Summary: Mr X complained about delay and poor communication in the education, health and care plan process. In particular, Mr X said there was fault in the consultation process which meant his son missed the opportunity of an earlier specialist school placement. We have found delay and poor communication by the Council causing Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a symbolic payment.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales after deciding Y needed a Plan in May 2024. She also said the Council delayed issuing a response to her complaint. The Council was at fault because it issued Y’s final EHC Plan 36 weeks outside of statutory timescales. It was also at fault for not issuing its complaint responses within timescales. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £2300 to recognise Y’s loss of provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for damage and personal injury as ultimately this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline to consider a complaint about the welfare of a child in its care. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue draft and final Education, Health and Care Plans for her child Y within legal timescales, and withdrew special educational provision from Y. I find the Council at fault for missing the legal timescales and withdrawing educational provision which caused injustice in the form of distress and missed provision. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s actions delayed an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because Miss X used her right of appeal to a tribunal and we cannot investigate the actions of the Council during that appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to name a school on her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. It is unlikely investigation into other matters would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to stop her daughter’s direct payments in October 2024 and about an outstanding debt the Council says needs to be paid back. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his request to provide home to school transport for his child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about Derbyshire County Council and NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board. We will not consider his complaint about the delay issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That complaint is late. Also, we cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about not securing health provision to enable Y to attend school. That is bound up with matters which Mr X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), which places the complaint out of jurisdiction.