LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mrs X’s child’s case. Care proceedings are ongoing, and the matters Mrs X complains about will be considered in court.

Summary: Mr X complained about inflated invoices issued by the Council and his requests for them to be corrected being ignored; failure to explain and document how the Council had reached the figures for the corrected charges and said the Council changed its time sheet reporting software, but invoice inflation continued. We find the Council was at fault for delay and lack of consideration of Mr X’s requests and failing to properly explain how it had reached the figures for the corrected charges. This caused Mr and Mrs X significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this inju

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to find education for

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Children’s Services. That is because the complaint is late.

There was no delay in the process of reviewing Y and Z’s Education, Health and Care Plans when they moved to Oxfordshire. There was fault by Council officers in telling Ms X that Z would become a looked after child in order to continue to board at school. This caused Ms X and Z avoidable distress. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice including an apology, a symbolic payment and training for relevant staff.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to adhere to statutory timescales and said there has been safeguarding issues with his son’s provision. He also said the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider annual reviews within the statutory timescales. This caused uncertainty to Mr X and delayed his right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers concerning the contact and residence arrangements of Mr X’s child. These matters could have been raised during court action Mr X referred to. Even if there had been no court action it would be reasonable for him to go to court. This is because only a court can decide where children should live and who they should see in the case of a dispute.

Mr X complained the Council failed to secure suitable education provision for J, or discharge its statutory education responsibilities, when J stopped attending school. Mr X said this led to J losing education provision, affecting J’s educational attainment and wellbeing. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its Section 19 duty between February 2023 and May 2023, when J stopped attending school for health reasons. This caused J an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Other parts of Mr X’s complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s ju

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of parking restrictions on Mrs X’s road. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of child protection and child in need action in relation to the complainant’s family. This is because we would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out and our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide information requested about proposals to dispose of a piece of land as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complained about Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, and NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board. She complained about faults relating to aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have upheld Ms X’s complaints about discharge, assessment, care planning and personal health budgets. We did not uphold the rest of Ms X’s complaints. The organisations have accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, and NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board. She complained about faults relating to aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have upheld Ms X’s complaints about discharge, assessment, care planning and personal health budgets. We did not uphold the rest of Ms X’s complaints. The organisations have accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, and NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board. She complained about faults relating to aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We have upheld Ms X’s complaints about discharge, assessment, care planning and personal health budgets. We did not uphold the rest of Ms X’s complaints. The organisations have accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because the complaint concerns matters which are the subject of court action, or are bound up with those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to release his car from the car pound. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review and amend her son, Mr G’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance. Also that it did not arrange a suitable college placement, did not provide funding for free school meals while Mr G did not have a suitable placement and failed to provide appropriate remedies after it upheld some of her complaint. The Council was at fault in failing to review Mr G’s EHC Plan in line with the guidance which resulted in Mr G being without a college placement between September 2023 and February 2024. The Council will make a p

Summary: The complainant, Miss X, complained that the Council has failed to deliver the specialist provision in her daughter's education, health and care plan, failed to act on professional reports and failed to respond to her complaints in a timely manner. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to Miss X’s complaints in a timely manner. This caused significant stress to Miss X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint about a councillor’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her care and support hours. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the potential faults have not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about a Council charging for care after a hospital discharge. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. It has also provided a suitable remedy for a delay in cancelling the care package and we would be unlikely to achieve more by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Council actions and failure to meet statutory timescales during her child’s Education Health and Care needs assessment and her dissatisfaction with the final plan. She has appealed to the tribunal about the content of the plan and the delay issuing the plan did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council had not acted in line with the Care Act 2014 and the did not allow flexibility and innovation in the use of direct payments to meet the needs set out in her son, Mr G’s care and support plan. There was no fault in how the Council considered the use of direct payments. The Council delayed in completing a review of Mr G’s needs, but this did not cause an injustice.