LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment carried out by the Council. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint concerning a direct payments contingency fund. This is because the complainant has confirmed the Council has resolved her complaint by adding to her care provision so we could not add anything more.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with suitable education and support, failed to keep her updated and has not been transparent. It has also delayed dealing with her complaint. Ms X says this has caused stress to the whole family. The Council has upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised and offered a remedy. I consider this is a satisfactory response and is line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her brother, Mr Y, with satisfactory support for 28 days. We will not investigate this complaint. Although it is clear the events caused Mr Y some distress, the Council has accepted some fault and taken action to resolve the issues brought to us. This includes apologising for the distress its actions caused and putting support in place to meet Mr Y’s needs. It is unlikely we could add more by investigating.

Summary: Miss C complained on her own behalf and that of her son, Mr D, who has care needs. We upheld her complaint, finding the Council undertook a flawed review of Mr D’s care needs. This resulted in it wrongly stopping him paying Miss C as his carer, against his wishes. This caused unnecessary distress to both Miss C and Mr D and contributed to Mr D having no organised care provision after July 2024. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and improve its service to avoid a repeat.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the council’s involvement with Miss X’s family during family court proceedings. The law does not allow us to investigate matters that are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant distress, frustration and uncertainty for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council delivered the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or how it considered its alternative education duties because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to intervene and ensure her son received the education and provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan when the school he was attending reduced his education to 90 minutes per week. She also complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find the Council was at fault for failing to ensure Ms X’s son received the education and provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its delay during the annual review and for not ensuri

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of Mr Y’s care and support. The Council accepted it had not involved his brother, Mr X, in decision-making and support planning. It has apologised and taken steps to involve Mr X. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the matter further, as the Council proposed suitable action in response to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the contents of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to have appealed to the SEND tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance and noise because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the court about the matter is he wishes to pursue it, who are better placed to consider the issue.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child. This is because Mrs X appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the religious grounds for her appeal against its decision not to provide school transport for her children. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. Because there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to name a school in his son’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because Mr X has appealed to a tribunal. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions around Mr X’s son’s reduced timetable.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate the Council’s poor communication because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to communicate appropriately with her about her mother’s care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to follow the correct transfer procedures when X moved into the area with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Ms C also complains the Council failed to provide the education set out in the EHC Plan. The Council failed to provide X with education it had a duty to provide and in the transfer of the EHC Plan. This caused X to miss education. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment and service improvements.

Summary: The Council accepts it failed to communicate and secure the provision in Ms X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when her college placement failed. This caused Ms X and Y frustration, and distress and meant Y missed out on the SEN provision in their EHC Plan. The Council has apologised and made a payment to Ms X and Y. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y, and about the Council’s poor communication. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered a total remedy of £1,200 as part of its complaint process. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to obtain relevant professional reports as part of an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child. This is because Mrs X appealed the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his child received education and Speech and Language Therapy from September 2024, did not reimburse travel expenses for Occupational Therapy appointments, and mishandled his complaints. We find the Council at fault for delays in arranging education provision and considering Occupational Therapy transport, which caused uncertainty about whether support could have been in place for the start of the academic year. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and reimburse eligible Occupational Therapy travel costs.