LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a lack of suitable educational provision for her son, Y. This is because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal and so her complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The other matters she complained about are not separable from her Tribunal appeal, or were brought to us late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the relocation of a streetlight. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a member of staff and failure to provide information. The Council has apologised for the actions of the staff member and provided the information sought. We therefore consider the tests set out in are Assessment Code which establish what complaints we investigate are not met.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not support his child with education during the 2022 / 23 academic year. We found fault because the Council’s medical support panel did not take account of all relevant information known to it, or else that it could have obtained. It also failed to tell Mr B that it refused a request to carry out an education, health and care needs assessment. We consider these faults caused injustice as Mr B’s child did not receive additional support with his education when recovering from a major operation. Mr B also suffered distress. The Council has accepted these f

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. Miss X was above compulsory school age when she was unable to attend the placement named in her Education Health and Care Plan, and the Council had no duty to offer alternative educational provision. It met its duty by reviewing the Plan and issuing a fresh Plan within the time allowed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to warrant further investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council has assessed her daughter’s, Ms D’s Disability Related Expenditure (DRE). This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaints about Ms D’s care and support needs because we have previously considered and decided them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint about how its children’s services assessed the needs of a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how a care home, which was providing care to Miss B on the Council’s behalf, told her about potential charges and arranged the payment of an invoice. There was also no fault in how the Council considered her carer’s complaint about these matters.

Summary: There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms X’s requests for an adult social care assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint about arrangements for his mother to be discharged from hospital to a care home, and about the funding of her care there. We are unlikely to find fault by the organisations, and further investigation of the complaint is unlikely to achieve more.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the health and social care support provided by the Council and the NHS Trust after she removed her late husband, Mr B, from a respite placement and took him home. She also complained about the way the former Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG and now Integrated Care Board) considered whether

Summary: Miss X complains the Council gave inaccurate advice and failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable or alternative education provision. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault by the Council. The Council followed its Emotional Based Support Avoidance (EBSA) ladder to assist Y back into school, and education provision remained accessible and available to Y. Once the Council exhausted its EBSA ladder, it correctly made a referral to its Medical Support Panel once it had the evidence to do so.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to ensure her son received the provision specified in his Education, Health, and Care Plan causing distress to both her and her son. We found there was fault by the Council as it failed to ensure all the provision was in place. This caused injustice to Ms X and Y. The Council has accepted our recommendation to make a payment to Ms X, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise and vibrations caused by alleged defects in the highway.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about accessing information because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s decision to reduce her daughter’s care package, and the delay in finding a care agency to provide this, which she said resulted in distress to her and her daughter. We did not find fault with the way in which the Council reached its decision to reduce the package. However, there was a delay in putting the support package in place, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a request for speed restrictions on a road in Mr X’s village. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to introduce a resident’s parking scheme in his area. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with report that someone who worked with children ignored concerns of abuse. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the matter was dealt with.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly refused to accept property valuations from four estate agents provided as part of a financial assessment to calculate his wife, Mrs X’s contributions towards the cost of her care. As a result the Council has asked them to reimburse over £50,000 in care costs and to arrange and fund Mrs X’s ongoing care. Mr X states they do not have the resources to pay for this. The delays in resolving the dispute regarding the calculation of Mrs X’s assets and whether she is required to self-fund or contribute towards the cost of her care is fault. As are the d

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against it using the statutory appeal process available to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right of way. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy the upset caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide an advocate to support her and her child (Child Y) during Child Protection enquiries in 2020. The Council appears at fault for failing to properly consider making this reasonable adjustment to assist Mrs X and for significant delay in responding to her complaint. The Council agrees to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the uncertainty caused to Mrs X and for time and trouble caused by its delay in complaint handling. The Council will also review its procedures and provide guidance to staff on the importance of con

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Trading Standards Service’s response to an accident involving an A Frame tow bar. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was responsible for a delay in Mr X leaving hospital. Mr X consistently refused an assessment of his needs and said he would arrange his own care privately when home.