LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the delay in the Council issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because of the significant delay in completing the assessment process and issuing a final plan for Mr X’s son. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is

Summary: The Council failed to arrange the transitional support that Ms X’s child, G, needed when they started school. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms X properly, delayed consulting alternative schools and delayed issuing G’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council’s faults caused G to miss out on a term of transitional support and caused Ms X and G frustration and uncertainty. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £800 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not remove him from an abusive environment in the 1970s and 1980s. This is because the complaint is late, and the events are historic so we could not complete a sufficient investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to share information and delays in complaint handling. The Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation and it is unlikely we would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of a child from their mother’s care and related events. We cannot investigate matters that have been considered in court. We have no power to investigate the actions of police officers and a judge.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan process. We have found fault with the Council for failing to meet statutory timescales which delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal and caused Mrs X and her son distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process because the Council upheld the complaint and apologised. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an Educational Psychology report because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider their human rights and the fostering services national minimum standards during the

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council carried out financial assessments for her sons, Mr Y and Mr Z. Mrs X says this has resulted in them being charged for care. We find fault with the Council for its communication about charges, and its consideration of Mrs X’s complaint. We agreed the Council will apologise to Mrs X and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult residential care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has ignored her safeguarding concerns about her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to include the provision of school transport in the complainant’s daughter’s Education Health and Care plan, and in failing to respond reasonably to her complaint about the matter. She used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a consultation request from the local planning authority. This is because the complaint has been made on behalf of a parish council and not a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a consultation request from the local planning authority. This is because the complainant is complaining on behalf of a Parish Council and not as a member of the public.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding referrals raised about her and about its decision to take her son’s case to the Court of Protection. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide any support for her wellbeing when it carried out a parent carer needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances and fettered its discretion when refusing to provide financial support to meet Mrs X’s eligible outcomes. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and considering again what support it can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes as a result of caring for two of her children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of the Council to conduct a mental health assessment of Mr X’s and to incorporate the result into the child’s Education Health and Care Plan. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to us recommending any more than the Council, as it agreed after discussion with Mr X to carry out an assessment by a psychologist. If the assessment eventually feeds into a part of the final Education Health and Care Plan that can be appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, it would also be reasonable for Mr X to use that right

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about a manager’s decision on her family’s case whilst there are ongoing criminal proceedings relating to her husband. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in providing an education to her child. The Council has accepted fault and its offer to remedy the complaint meets with our guidance on remedies. We are unlikely to achieve more.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the education provided to her child, Y, between March and July 2024 and the Council’s decision that it will not pay for home to transport. Ms X has appealed to a tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed for an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the Tribunal if she disagrees with the content or provision specified in the Plan.

Summary: We have found fault (service failure) with the Council for failing to process Mrs X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice.