LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s adult social care department failed to provide agreed care and support. He says it then withdrew all support without notice. As a result, he says he was evicted from his home. There is fault by the Council. It waived some care contributions. It agreed a further remedy we recommended.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council charged Mrs X for her care while it did a financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s support to Mrs X in relation to a child. The Council has agreed to take steps to remedy any injustice to Mrs X and there are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place Miss B’s brother in a respite care home placement.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to comply with a tribunal order to name a specialist placement in section I of her child, X’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss B says her mental health has been impacted, causing mental and physical exhaustion. Miss B also says her son is experiencing burnout which has heightened due to his needs not being met. We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider its section 42 duty. This has caused X to miss out on education and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, consider providing catch-up provision, make a symbolic payment

Summary: Mrs J complained the Council delayed its assessment of Mrs K’s son’s education health and care needs. It also failed to provide him with education, or the contents of his Education, Health and Care Plan, after he was excluded from school. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to increase the symbolic payment it has already offered for the injustice to Mrs K’s son, because of education he has missed out on.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to discuss its neurodiversity policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, poor communication and delays in complaints handling. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her family between 2015 and 2022. The complaint is late, and we decided there were no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her personal data during a child protection conference. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X is not liable for the penalty charge as she does not own the vehicle and the injustice she claims stems from the actions of the owner (a lease company) which has charged her for it.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint about the Council’s child protection actions in 2010. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Further to this, the matters appear to have been subject to court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for residential adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council charging for care which Ms C received and was told she would need to pay for. The delay in billing does not mean the charges are not due. There is not a significant enough injustice caused by delays to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son, Y’s, education. There was fault in the way the Council did not pay the backdated free school meals payment it agreed to and delayed responding to the complaint. This frustrated Mrs X. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to concerns about the welfare of children and an adult. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to consider it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her request it issue her son with an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council officer made false allegations about him. This is because Mr X has commenced court proceedings about these matters placing them outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s Blue Badge application process and its decision to refuse her application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the issues raised have been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the relevant Government minister. We have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a LADO investigation and the removal of a child they were fostering. There was no fault in the Council’s response to allegations by a child Mr and Mrs X fostered.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about whether an Education Health and Care Plan meets a child’s needs as it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal. We will not investigate her complaint about whether specified education provision was given, as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a social worker’s handling of her mother’s care and support. This is because the complaint is outside our jurisdiction as the matters have been party to court proceedings.

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to provide his son, Z, with suitable alternative education since he stopped attending school. It delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to show it assessed Z’s needs when he stopped going to school or considered whether he was receiving a suitable education which was reasonably available and accessible. It also failed to show a record of its decision. These caused distress as Z lost education, had the uncertainty about whether it properly considered his situation, and caused frustration and stress. The

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of the complainant’s son’s school transport. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted on changes to its charging policy for non-residential care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.