LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to meet his care and support needs and wrongly charged him for his care. I found no fault in the way the Council decided how to meet Mr F’s needs or in its calculations of his contributions. The Council failed to carry out a carer’s assessment of Mr F’s carer, Mr J. This was fault which causes Mr J uncertainty about whether other support could have been offered. The Council has agreed to offer a carers assessment to Mr J and pay him £300 to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council’s chosen preferred scheme does not consider all the household’s needs and occupational therapist recommendations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the provisions in section F of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to monitor the provision was in place. This lack of support has caused Ms X and her child distress. The Councils complaint response was poor, causing Ms X additional distress. This is their injustice. The Council agreed a package of remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding referrals about his welfare. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed arranging alternative educational provision for her child, Y when he was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council failed to provide the specialist provision outlined in Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council decided without fault that the school named in the Plan could meet Y’s needs. The specialist provision was available to Y at the named school. However, the Council was at fault for a three month delay in arranging alternative education provision and failing to review Y’s EHC Plan within statutory timescales. The C

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision while he was out of school following a school placement breakdown. We find the Council at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education or any alternative provision from January to July 2024. The Council has also failed to meet its statutory duty to ensure the provision set out in Ms X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan was delivered. This fault meant he received very limited education between January and July 2024. This caused Ms X and her son significant distress and uncertainty. The

Summary: Mr X complained his child Y did not receive educational provision from April 2023. Most of Mr X’s complaint is outside our remit because there was a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against the school placement the Council named on Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan of July 2023. School A offered to provide individual tuition at an off-site building in April 2023, which Mr X refused. So we did not uphold the complaint about a lack of education for Y. There was a two-week delay in amending Y’s Plan after an emergency annual review meeting. This was fault, but it did not cause sign

Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided to reduce his son’s weekly care hours even though it had been agreed there were no changes in his needs. We did not find the Council at fault for how it decided this.

Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of her son Mr Y, that the Council took too long to move Mr Y to another residential placement. Ms X said this caused Mr Y’s health to worsen. We have found the Council at fault for the time it took to move Mr Y. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the uncertainty she suffered.

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

Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of his adult son, Mr W. He says the Council made changes to the services it commissions to meet Mr W’s care and support needs. We find no fault in this part of Mr Y’s complaint because the Council offered an alternative service which met Mr W’s needs within his personal budget. There is fault in other areas of support planning because the Council did not arrange the agreed respite and failed to properly consider transport needs. The Council will apologise and make a £200 payment in recognition of Mr Y’s avoidable distress, time and trouble. The Council will al

Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, C’s education. The Council was at fault for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care plan within statutory timeframes, delaying in completing an annual review, failing to identify a post-16 placement for C within required timeframes, failing to provide provision set out in the plan and poor communication and complaint handling. This caused C to miss provision and Mrs B and C frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, complete the annual review and make payments to recognise the personal injus

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y’s education. The Council was at fault for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care plan within statutory timeframes, delaying in completing an annual review, failing to provide provision set out in the plan and poor communication and complaint handling. This caused Y to miss provision and Mrs X and Y frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, complete the annual review, send us an action plan and make payments to recognise the personal injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of care and support in the complainant’s relative’s care home. This is because the substantive matters have been to court or could reasonably have been raised with the court, plus we are unlikely to find fault with more recent complaint matters. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome requested.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s home has been damaged by vibrations from Council demolition works at a nearby college site. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy instead.

Summary: Miss J complained the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan to her child. It then failed to ensure they had a place in an education setting for the 2024-25 academic year. We upheld both parts of the complaint, finding faults by the Council resulted in a loss of suitable education for Miss J’s child and avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing EV chargers in a residential area without sufficient consultation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to a property when removing equipment that did not belong to the Council. There is not enough evidence to prove fault by the Council, and property damage/theft is a matter for the police and insurers to investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his vehicle crossover application. We found fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application. This fault caused him injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and respond to Mr X’s appeal.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in completing a needs assessment and then delayed in putting in place the help he needed. Mr X says this caused him stress and caused a deterioration in his mental and physical health. We find fault in the Councils actions for delay in completing the assessment and putting in place the funding for the help Mr X needed. We recommend the Council issues Mr X with an apology, pays a financial payment and completes service improvements.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council inappropriately withdrew her daughter’s, Ms D’s, transport to day support services. The Council is at fault for failing to properly apply its transport policy; and in the way it decided on, and reduced services to Ms D. This has caused uncertainty about whether the Council’s decision is correct. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, and make service improvements.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council wrongly assessed Mr X’s care contributions and sent a backdated invoice for day centre fees. Miss X says if the Council had completed its assessment correctly, Mr X would not have used the service. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault, which caused Mr X and Miss Y avoidable and unnecessary distress and financial strain. The Council has agreed to waive the outstanding invoice.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council inappropriately withdrew her son’s, Mr D’s, transport to day support services. The Council is at fault for failing to properly apply its transport policy; and in the way it decided on, and reduced services to Mr D. This has caused uncertainty about whether the Council’s decision is correct. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C, and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s property by trees. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to claim on the Council’s insurer. If the claim is refused she can take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because the injustice is not significant enough and there is nothing more we could achieve.