LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in acting on the family’s request for her stepfather to return home and about the care he received at the new care home. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider 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 Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s application for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has apologised and offered a remedy payment for the injustice caused by the delay in the application. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.

Summary: We found that the Council delayed updating Mr X’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan following a review and did not provide a suitable alternative education when his son could not attend school. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect the lost education and distress caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in carrying out a Child in Need assessment for her child, Y and about non-delivery of social care support. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. It will now consider Mrs X’s complaint by starting a stage two investigation through the statutory procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider an ongoing insurance/legal claim for damages under its corporate complaints process. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about delays issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable frustration, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights. We also upheld Ms X complaint about poor communication and complaint handling which caused avoidable frustration. We found the Council acted in line with the law and relevant guidance by putting in place a reintegration plan and tailored support for Y as well as part-time alternative educational provision. So we did not uphold the complaint about a failure to provide full-time educational provision. The Council will apologise

Summary: Mrs A complained that delays by the Council lost the opportunity for her disabled daughter Ms X to attend the placement which would have best met her needs. There were delays which caused injustice to Mrs A and Ms X but the Council’s decision not to fund the preferred placement was not fault. Ms X is now settled in a suitable placement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about contact with his children because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Contact is a private matter between Mr F and his wife.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to make correct direct payments for his child, C and failed to explain what he can use these for. The Council is at fault which has caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to a package or remedies which includes recalculating the direct payments and make any outstanding payments. It should also confirm in writing how it has calculated the amount and what Mr X can use the money for.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s delay in carrying out an annual review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and uncertainty. We found service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out the annual review. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case and have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance and repair because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed holding her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and delayed issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan. She also complained about poor communication from the Council about a gym pass for Y. The Council was at fault. It delayed holding Y’s annual review and communicated poorly about Y’s gym pass which caused Ms X confusion, uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council will pay Ms X a symbolic payment and apologise. The Council has already acted to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in the annual review process for her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council’s delay was fault. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and her daughter and the additional frustration caused by the delayed right of appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint of the Council’s bias against him in matters involving his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been to court. Other bodies are better placed to consider Mr X’s complaints about an individual Social Worker and the accuracy of Council records about him.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of safeguarding incidents in a care home. This is because we have already considered and upheld this matter in a previous investigation. We also consider the Council’s own investigation is satisfactory, and so there could be no worthwhile outcome to further investigation anyway.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the matter further.

Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her father (Mr Y) about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns that he was vulnerable and at risk of harm and neglect due to alleged poor care he received while in residential care. Based on current information, there is no evidence the Council failed to consider all concerns raised in this respect. In any event, there is no evidence Mr Y suffered an injustice as a direct result of the Council’s safeguarding actions, or any other matter it is responsible for. We also found we do not have jurisdiction to investigate some of the matters which form

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a data breach. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to protect Miss X’s grandchildren from harm. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.