LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the education provided for her son from 2020 to 2022. This is because we have already considered the matter and decided not to investigate it. We will not investigate further Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to take a new complaint. But we have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s support for her son's special educational needs from September 2022 to June 2023, including a delayed review of his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint due to a delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan review.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council officers’ actions and the Councils decisions about her tenancy agreement. We are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation. Further part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

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

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s special educational needs and disability service. We upheld his complaint finding the Council delayed in completing reviews of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan between February 2023 and July 2024. It also communicated poorly and we considered it should have done more to review his child’s access to education. These faults caused injustice as distress and lost education provision. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action agreed by the Council to remedy that injustice and improve its service

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse the complainant’s legal costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X on behalf of her daughter Miss Z, complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education when she was unable to attend school due to illness. The Council failed to consider what education Miss Z could manage and failed to provide alternative provision for a year affecting Miss Z’s mental health and causing her to fall behind her peers. An apology and a financial remedy for the uncertainty is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in carrying out a care assessment and meeting the needs of Ms X’s child. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome from that already offered by the Council, and we could not recommend the Council does anything more than the assessment it has already offered.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since May 2023. We found fault with the suitability of the education provided by the Council for two terms and six weeks from 22 May 2023 to 26 July 2024. The Council has already paid Ms X £2,250 for the missed education and £270 for missed free school meals. The Council has also offered £600 for the distress and anxiety this matter has caused Ms X and paid this to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for her distress. We consider the £600 it has paid is a suitable symbolic gesture for her dist

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The Council has already upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child, W, when they stopped attending school in February 2023. Mrs X also complained about how the Council dealt with two annual reviews of W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This meant W missed out on education, Mrs X’s right of appeal was delayed and she was caused frustration. The Council made a suitable offer of a financial remedy and it is open to Mrs X to accept it.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided a suitable education for son, Z, and how it met her needs as a carer. There was fault in how the Council failed to make a decision following a review of Z’s Education Health and Care plan, failed to keep his education under review, reduced his hours of education in early 2024, failed to assess Miss X’s needs as a carer and how it communicated with her. This caused Z to miss out on some education and caused both Miss X and Z avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s historic complaint that she was raped when she was a teenager in the Council’s care over 20 years ago. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters, such as this, are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s failure to arrange provision for her child, D, after they were permanently excluded from school. Mrs Y also complains the Council delayed when issuing D’s EHC plan. We find there was some delay in arranging full-time suitable provision for D and some minor delay in finalising the EHC plan. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: We upheld a complaint about adaptations to Mr Y’s property. The Council was at fault. It has taken some action to remedy the injustice by arranging an independent reassessment and apologising. The Council should ensure the works are completed and make a symbolic payment of £500 to reflect Mr Y’s avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making Miss X’s children subject to child protection plans. Investigation by us would not lead to the outcome Miss X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highways drainage because the courts are better placed to consider liability and negligence claims.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council's occupational therapy assessments of Miss Y following a multi-disciplinary meeting.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision in place for Mrs X’s child. This is because she used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of his grandson Mr X, complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support when he turned 18. The matters Mr Z raised were known to him in 2021 and he raised them with the Council at that time. This is a late complaint and falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s involvement in the child safeguarding procedure following an incident in September 2021. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her and her children avoidable distress. The Council was at fault for the delay in considering Miss X’s complaint, and the lack of information around medical examinations for her children. We consider the remedies the Council offered to Miss X suitably address the injustice it had caused her.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed issuing his son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). We find fault with the Council for delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan, poor communication and missed education and provision. We have suggested financial remedies for the frustration and distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to include the agreed provision in Mrs X’s child’s Education Health and Care Plan. Only the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal can decide what provision should be included when this is in dispute, so it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal.