LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to put alternative provision in place for her child, Y who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they were unable to attend school between February and July 2024. This period falls outside of our jurisdiction because Mrs X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal. The Council was at fault for delays in paying Mrs X direct payments after the tribunal concluded which caused a three week loss of education for Y. It also delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to recognis

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s financial assessment for residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. Any delay or lack of clarity did not cause significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a care provider organises care provision. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his finances and disability-related expenditure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint as any injustice is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council did not complete a financial assessment correctly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the fault accepted has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council decided to discharge her mother, Mrs Y, to a care home without considering whether Mrs Y could return home with a care package. Mrs X said she was ignored and not given any advice or help while she was applying for deputyship which took two years. Mrs X says the Council are now chasing her for £90,000 of outstanding care home fees. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to consider Mrs Y returning home and for the information it provided Mrs X about the costs of a care home and applying for deputyship. The Council agrees to a

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council’s handling of his complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s financial assessment to decide if Mr Z should contribute towards the cost of his care. We found fault as the Council did not provide sufficient evidence it properly considered its discretion and Mr Z’s particular circumstances. The Council agreed to make a fresh decision and apologise to Mrs X.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council leading to the removal of her children. This decision was subject to a court order and the matters complained of are closely linked to matters that were or could reasonably have been mentioned in court. Some of the matters directly relate to the conduct of court proceedings and we cannot investigate them. Another body is better placed than us to consider data access matters.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframe for issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B and delayed her son, X, starting specialist provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframe for issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B and delayed her son, Y, starting specialist provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s charging under a Deferred Payment Agreement for the residential care service for her mother. We found fault with the Council in not providing enough information about Deferred Payment Agreements and in the way it calculated care charges. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mrs Y. The Council has already offered suitable personal remedies and has carried out some service improvements. The Council has agreed to continue improving its services by ensuring more comprehensive information is available for people considering Deferred Payment Agreement

Summary: Mrs X complained her daughter, Y, has been unable to access education since September 2023 and the Council refused to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We find the Council at fault for failing to record its section 19 consideration and for applying a higher threshold to the legal test to determine if an Education, Health and Care needs assessment was necessary. This caused Y and Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment, complete staff training and amend its decision letter template.

Summary: Mrs X complained of significant delay in the Council’s assessment of her son for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). She also complained she was unreasonably denied sight of her son’s EP report and communication was poor. We found there was significant delay in the EHC Plan assessment process, but no fault in the Council’s overall communication and sharing of the EP assessment report. We recommended a remedy to reflect the loss of education and support during the period of delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of an assessment the Council completed about his children. This is because our intervention would achieve nothing significant.

Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s biased and inaccurate information which led to its decision to remove their foster child from their care. They also complained about a lack of support and the Council withholding information. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not deal with her son Y’s education properly and he missed education and special educational needs (SEN) provision. The Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, did not include provision in the EHC Plan and its complaint response was late. Ms X suffered delay and Y missed special educational needs provision. The Council should apologise, Pay Ms X £700 in respect of delays, pay Ms X £1,800 for missed SEN provision, Pay Ms X £250 for time and trouble and provide guidance to staff.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal properly with a safeguarding investigation regarding a foster family. The Council acted disproportionately, and unprofessionally. Miss X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should pay Miss X £1500.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a social worker possibly fabricating documents which were submitted to, and considered in, care proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care, because the care package was arranged and funded by the NHS.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s experience as a care leaver. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for the delay in complaining to us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s calculation of her mother’s financial expenditure when it calculated how much she should contribute towards her domiciliary care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.