LGO Individual Decisions

We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council failed to resolve her complaint within the required timeframe under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing the review of an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a remedy for the injustice this caused. It is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal about other matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s cases in its child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his late mother, Mrs Y’s, financial assessment linked to her care needs. We have found fault because the Council took too long to complete the assessment. This would have caused Mr X distress. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and written off a significant amount of Mrs Y’s fees due to the delayed assessment. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have already remedied any injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the code of conduct complaints the complainant made against two councillors. There is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the outcome of the two complaints.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to repair damaged or missing pavement safety tactiles which have caused a potential danger to visually impaired people. Mr X also complained the Council’s approach to completing road repairs indirectly discriminated against visually impaired people. We found fault with the Council for failing to consider the full powers at its disposal to repair defects caused by utility companies and for failing to encourage utility companies to install utility covers with inlays for safety tactiles. The Council agreed to remind staff about the powers at its disposa

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the production and content of a report used in Court proceedings. We will not investigate her child protection decisions’ complaint as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to complain to the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her daughter, W, when she was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X upset and frustration and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision she was entitled to. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise, pay Miss X £3550 and review its practices to prevent the fault happening again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a claim for damage to a vehicle caused by a pothole as ultimately this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: Mrs Y, acting for Mrs X, complained about the outcome of the financial assessment carried out by the Council for Mrs X. She also complained about the Council’s failure to apply for a deprivation of liberty in the community order for Mrs X. Since Mrs Y came to us, the Council has decided to apply for the court order and to disregard Mrs X’s property until the order is issued. We have ended this investigation as there is nothing else we could achieve for Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his son’s care. The Council accepts there was a long delay in completing the son’s financial assessment and has written off some of the charges. There is no other evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services during private court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in providing the provision and support listed in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y within the statutory time limits, and failed to ensure she received suitable education while she was out of school. Mrs X said this caused her real stress and meant she incurred additional expenses. We find the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a document provided to a court. This is because a legal bar prevents us investigating any matter raised in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her request for direct payments and delayed responding to her review request. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on provision and caused emotional distress which impacted their physical health. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s delay responding to Mrs X’s review request. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and her child.

Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education and delayed completing their Education Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs Y also complained about delays by the Council in responding to her complaint. We have not found fault by the Council regarding the provision of a suitable education or the completion of the Education Health and Care needs assessment. We have found fault, causing injustice, with its handling of Mrs Y’s complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the upset c

Summary: Mr D complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process, failed to provide his child (X) with an education, and how it handled his concerns. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the EHC plan process, to arrange educational provision for X, and provide Mr D a refund for agreed provision. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr D to acknowledge the injustice this caused X and the family.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received therapy provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between November 2022 and February 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Y received the therapy provision and failed to carry out sufficient oversight or investigation in response to Mrs X’s concerns. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge Y’s loss of provision and for the distress caused to her.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child Q received suitable education and provision in their Education, Health, and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused Q to miss special educational needs support. This also caused distress to Q and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, evidence it is taking action to ensure Q’s provision is in place, and pay a financial remedy. It will also review its processes and issue reminders to staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult residential care. The Council delayed confirming the care charges and offered a repayment plan for the debt. The complainant accepted the care knowing they might have to pay for it, and the charges are rightly due. The offer of a repayment plan acknowledges the impact of the delay. There is no significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s report produced as part of family court proceedings. The law prevents us doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board. She says they ignored her views when it moved her brother, Mr Y, to a care home, which cannot meet his mental health needs. The matter has and still is being considered by the Court of Protection. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board. She says they ignored her views when it moved her brother, Mr Y, to a care home, which cannot meet his mental health needs. The matter has and still is being considered by the Court of Protection. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust and NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board. She says they ignored her views when it moved her brother, Mr Y, to a care home, which cannot meet his mental health needs. The matter has and still is being considered by the Court of Protection. The law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has started.