LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council provided misleading and biased reports to the court in relation to his child. An absolute and permanent bar prevents us from considering anything the Council has produced for the court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to report any current safeguarding concerns to the council where his child now lives or to return to court if he wants to challenge the existing care arrangements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning his time in care. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about hearing aids going missing in a care home. It is unlikely we could achieve anything worthwhile or achieve the outcome requested as missing personal possessions are matters for insurers or the police.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a best interests decision which determined where Miss B’s son should live. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan as it is not sufficient to justify an investigation. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Tribunal if the Council’s assessment process was so flawed it meant the Education Health and Care Plan does not meet her child’s needs.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about missing support under an EHC Plan. The Council have offered a suitable remedy. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the contents of an EHC Plan. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused by Council trees as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to seek a remedy in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays following an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review meeting. This is because the Council has already upheld the complaint and offered Miss X £300. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused and further investigation would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide post-16 transport to college. This is because the Council has now agreed to provide transport. This is the outcome Mrs X wanted. An investigation would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate part of her complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited. The Council apologised for its poor communication, so an investigation by the Ombudsman into that matter is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her children because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Mrs X’s application for travel assistance on behalf of her child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove provision from her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for Y after he was excluded from school and failed to review his Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory guidance. The Council was at fault for not securing alternative provision for Y, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award travel assistance to Miss X’s child Y. This is because the Council has remedied any injustice Miss X experienced by providing her with a personal travel budget, which she has accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about an investigation into bullying at his son’s school. This is because the complaint is made late to us.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about fault in the production and content of an Education Health and Care plan. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) which means the Ombudsman cannot intervene.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act to address flooding on a road he uses daily. We found evidence of delay by the Council and that it did not clearly communicate with Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and write to him explaining what action it will take to resolve the flooding.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council failed to consult sufficient school placements for Ms X’s child, Y, when they stopped attending school. The Council also failed to properly consider whether the alternative provision it offered Y was reasonably accessible to them and failed to ensure Y received key therapies in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council’s faults have caused Y and Ms X uncertainty and caused Y to avoidably miss out on special educational provision for eleven months. The Council has paid Ms X £3,250 to recognise the injustice caused by these faults. We have also recommended that the

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about missed Special Educational Needs provision. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. We cannot investigate the contents of a final Education Health and Care plan issued by the Council because Miss X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused her request for overnight care for her disabled child Y and did not deal with her complaint about this adequately. There was a delay in agreeing funding and the decision-making process was not made clear to Ms X causing her avoidable frustration and confusion. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation following the death of her baby. She said it failed to include critical medical evidence in its safeguarding report. The Council was not at fault. It carried out the safeguarding enquiry in line with relevant law and policy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education, Health and Care annual review and alternative provision after he stopped attending school in summer 2024. We found the Council delayed proper assessment of its section 19 duties after June 2024 and delayed putting alternative provision in place for the child. The Council also failed to consult special schools and was late to issue a final amended EHC Plan following and annual review in June 2024. This caused Mrs X and her son frustration and delayed support the Council agreed to in December 2024. The Council agreed

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to properly support her child for seven years. Some elements of the complaint are late and we have no remit to investigate others. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.