LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to meet his son’s, Mr Q’s, needs for care and support. The Council accepts it took too long to reassess his needs, the assessment contained inaccuracies, the draft care and support plan lacked clarity and it changed his personal budget without giving four weeks’ notice. The Council has apologised for the delay and the inaccuracies but not the lack of clarity or the lack of notice. The Council accepts the need to reassess Mr Q’s needs based on his current circumstances. The Council needs to provide a more detailed apology, acknowledging the contrib

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays to an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment. The Council has acknowledged the delays and made a suitable offer of a financial remedy to address the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint about how the Council processed personal information relating to their family, or about the Council’s response to their subject access request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not arrange provision as specified in an Education Health and Care plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this claim for personal injuries. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complaint to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. She has not provided good reasons for approaching us late. Also, Miss B has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health).

Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to put in place sufficient support to enable her to return home from respite, delayed making those arrangements, failed to carry out mental capacity assessments properly, misled her family about what it was doing and failed to consider a complaint properly. There is no fault in the way the Council arranged the care provision at home. The Council failed to share important information with Ms B and her family, failed to properly advise her and failed to consider a complaint properly. An apology, payment to Mrs C and a reminder to officers is satisfactory rem

Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her client’s daughter, Z. We found fault because there was a significant delay in issuing Z’s plan. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for Z and her father, Mr Y. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Y.

Summary: The Council failed to consider whether to review a child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, or reassess his EHC needs when he moved to its area. The Council failed to provide him with an education for some months. It also did not deal with Ms B’s requests and contact, or her complaints to it properly. This caused the family distress and frustration, and meant that the child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of husband, Mr X that there was a delay by the Council in completing a financial assessment which caused avoidable confusion, uncertainty and backdated charges. The Council was at fault because it allowed the financial assessment to drift, leading to delay in the final outcome. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment and offer an affordable repayment plan for the backdated charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay issuing a refund for overpayment of adult social care fees. This is because the Council has accepted its fault, apologised for the impact on the complainant, and acted to prevent future failures. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to resolve the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter, Y. There was fault with how the Council took too long to arrange alternative education for Y when she stopped attending school in 2022 and how the Council decided how much alternative education to arrange. While this did not cause an injustice to Y, it caused some uncertainty for Mrs X. The agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X a financial remedy and remind its staff about keeping clear records of decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Summary: Ms B complained about the service provided by the Council to meet her child’s special educational needs. We upheld complaints the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and about its complaint handling. We consider these faults caused distress to Ms B and put her to unnecessary inconvenience. We have completed our investigation, satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council in response.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband about the way the Council handled his application for an extended dropped kerb. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and impacted her husband’s physical and mental health. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing delays to Mrs B’s son’s special educational needs support. It was also at fault for how long it took to respond to her complaint. It has now agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B to recognise her, and her son’s, injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with Mr Y, her late husband’s non-residential care charges. The Council was at fault for its failure to complete a financial assessment for Mr Y in 2021 and its failure to inform the family about his assessed contribution. The Council was also at fault for its delay with issuing an invoice for Mr Y’s care charges. This caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly assessed the contributions his late mother, Mrs Y, had to make towards her care which resulted in a backdated invoice and additional contributions. He also says the Council stopped paying its contribution to his mother’s Direct Payment account without telling him. Mr X says this caused him distress and to have to find a large sum of money with no prior notice. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for not advising Mr X payments would stop and recommend an apology and a financial payment.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it completed the Stage 3 statutory children’s complaint outcomes it had agreed and in failing to consider whether a financial remedy for missed short break provision was merited. The Council will apologise, make a time and trouble payment and now consider a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council shared her identity when acting upon concerns she raised about the safety of her grandchildren. We find the Council did not follow its procedures when dealing with the concerns. It should have discussed the concerns with Mrs Y and clarified the extent to which her anonymity could be protected. This caused significant distress which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council had delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for his son (Y) following his Annual Reviews. We found fault in the Council’s actions following the Annual Reviews of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan in 2022 and 2023. We also found fault in the Council’s failure to apply the principles of good administrative practice when carrying out its duties for children with the Education Health and Care Plans. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise his distress and uncertain

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection actions concerning Mr X’s family. This would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome from that already achieved as the result of the Council’s investigation. We would be unlikely to establish the claimed injustice was the sole result of failings by the Council. The Council has also agreed to correct any factual inaccuracies in its records and to refer Mr X to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he remains dissatisfied when it has done that.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about damage to her vehicle from a pothole in the road. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to make a claim against the Council via the courts.