LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her child’s final education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for failing to finalise the EHC plan within statutory timescales and this delayed Ms X’s appeal rights. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X in recognition of the delay and take action service improvement action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about inadequate traffic management on her road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained that he remained living in unsuitable temporary accommodation for over 12 months, despite the Council agreeing to move him. He also complained about delay in the Council’s complaints process. We upheld both parts of the complaint, finding the Council at fault for not re-housing Mr X sooner and for delay in responding to his complaint. These faults caused distress to Mr X and meant he lived in unsuitable accommodation for far longer than he should have. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, I set out action the Council has agreed to reme

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to refund her £2.90 parking payment. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Ms X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to support her when she became homeless. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in considering child protection action in respect of the complainant’s children. Investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about controlled parking zone applications. This is because the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of housing association accommodation made to the complainant in 2019. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Council has reviewed the decision on her case and there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to investigate anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Miss D complained there was an error on her housing bidding account which meant she was removed from the housing register and had to make a new application. Miss D says this has significantly impacted her mental health and ability to work. Miss D also says it has affected the mental health of her children. We find the Council at fault for failing to inform Miss D it had closed her bidding account. This caused Miss D frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss D to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: Mx G complained the Council failed to issue an education, health and care (EHC) plan after a review, delayed completing a reassessment of her needs, did not secure educational provision in accordance with her existing EHC plan, and failed to honour an agreement to provide a personal budget to fund her provision, meaning her mother, Mrs P, had to do this instead. We consider the Council was at fault on all points of complaint. This caused uncertainty and distress to Mx G and Mrs P, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to put in place provision in her daughter’s education, health and care plan. I am satisfied some of the claimed missing provision was in place but the Council failed to put in place the speech and language therapy. The Council also failed to make its own enquiries with the school when Ms B complained. That means Ms B’s daughter missed out on speech and language therapy and Ms B experienced distress. An apology, payment to Ms B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her child’s Education Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales and did not deliver the provisions set out in the Plan. Mrs X says this has impacted her child’s education and caused her financial strain. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused Mrs X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to take service improvement action and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the complainant’s homeless application and its duty to provide housing. This is because the Council’s decision carry review and appeal rights which the complainant could reasonably exercise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of alternative temporary accommodation which Ms X says is unsuitable for her needs. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review of suitability of the accommodation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable school placement for her child. Miss X also complained the Council ignored her contact and failed to provide her with suitable updates. We found fault with the Council delaying the search for a school placement for Miss X’s child for four months and for complaint handling delays amounting to 12 weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £250 for the inconvenience and distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making Miss X’s children subject to a child protection plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of alternative temporary accommodation which Miss X says was unsuitable. It was reasonable for her to appeal to the court following a review of suitability of the accommodation.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to secure all the speech therapy set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted service failure in that three sessions were missed. It has apologised and provided catch up group provision. It has agreed to also refund the cost of three private sessions Mrs X organised.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in her daughter, W’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after W struggled to attend school. The Council was at fault, but we cannot say it meant W missed out provision she should have had. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing and amending W’s EHC Plan. That fault caused Ms X avoidable frustration, meant W missed out on some special educational provision and delayed W receiving free school transport. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Ms X, pay her £450 and issue a remind

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling regarding her homeless application. It would not be a good use of public money to investigate the Council’s complaint handling.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete annual reviews and amend her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained it failed to deliver hydrotherapy provision. The Council was at fault. It failed to amend Y’s EHC Plan after an annual review in early 2024 which mean Y has an outdated Plan. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and the delayed appeal rights and amend Y’s Plan without further delay. The hydrotherapy provision is provided by the Local Integrated Care Board and therefore falls outside of our jurisdic

Summary: We found fault by NRS Healthcare as it failed to deliver the equipment Ms D required in a timely manner. This caused Ms D and her husband, Mr D, significant frustration and distress. NRS Healthcare will apologise and pay a financial remedy in recognition of this. We are satisfied the provider, along with London Borough of Bromley and NHS South East London Integrated Care Board, have now taken appropriate action to improve the service.