LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to advise the complainant of proposed changes to her child’s school transport arrangements. We consider further investigation will not lead to a worthwhile outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the provision outlined in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has ensured the provision was in place and there is insufficient injustice to warrant our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her dealings with the Council in connection with the care of her daughter because the Council has addressed all her complaints and there is nothing more we could add.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her car hit a pothole. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider statutory guidance when it decided to charge for his son, Y’s post-16 transport support. We found fault by the Council because it did not consider the statutory guidance when deciding to charge for Y’s post-16 transport support. The Council agreed to apologise, refund Mr X the cost of his contributions towards Y’s transport support and make him a symbolic payment for the avoidable time and trouble caused to him.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide sufficient signage warning him about a road closure. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged attitude of a social worker in taking three and a half days to make a phone call. The situation is unlikely to have been an emergency and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education provision for her child, W, when they stopped attending school. The Council did not properly consider whether W was out of school for health reasons but we cannot say, even on balance, that this meant W missed out on education they should have had. The Council was at fault for delay in amending W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice this caused, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £800. It will also issue a staff reminder.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the changes made to a dropped kerb. This is because there appears to be insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we would be unlikely to add to any previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her child (C), who is now a young adult. Some of Mrs X’s concerns are too old to bring to us now. Other concerns relate to court proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating those issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about adult safeguarding involving their son, Mr Y. We could not add to the investigations and responses the Council has already provided. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X want.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council replied to her children services complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to initially use the corporate complaints procedure. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to complete the statutory complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a safeguarding referral was unlawfully made and then considered by the Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed in its duty to ensure that her son’s Education, Health and Care plan was reviewed in line with the statutory timescales. She also complains the Council did not ensure her son received the educational provision he was entitled to. Some of Mrs Y’s complaint is too old for us to consider. In the other parts of the complaint, we find fault and the Council has agreed to provide a symbolic remedy in recognition of a shortfall in D’s interim provision between May and September 2024.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council managed the process of amending her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns about a third party’s involvement in his parent’s finances. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council failing to provide suitable provision for her child from their Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable educational provision and for poor handling of her contacts and complaint. The Council agreed to make payments to Ms X to address her child’s missed educational provision and agreed to ensure an Educational Psychologist creates a suitable programme to be delivered by a tutor.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his dropped kerb application. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing the reviews of her children’s Education, Health and Care plans. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaints early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for his child, Z, when Z missed significant amounts of education over several years. We have not investigated this complaint. This is because most of the complaint is late and because investigating the other part would not lead to a worthwhile outcome, nor the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about The Council not naming the right provision for Mrs X’s child on an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and we cannot act in an auxiliary role by recommending further remedy or the reimbursement of legal costs.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a care home commissioned by the Council to provide care to her late mother Ms Y and its complaint process. There would be no worthwhile outcome investigation of the complaint would achieve. Investigation by us would not add to the care firm’s investigation nor achieve a different outcome. We do not investigate complaint-handling processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide a proper education to her daughter, and caused delays when deciding her special educational needs support. We have found fault with the Council because it caused a significant delay while amending