LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the full provision detailed in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since January 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Mrs X child for three terms and four weeks. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable Teaching Assistant support and access to an Occupational Therapy Motor Skills programme for five terms. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide 12 months Farming Provision and 23 months and 3 weeks access to Hydrotherapy. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £12,75

Summary: Mrs Y disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse to provide transport assistance for her son, F, to attend the college named in his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says F attends the nearest suitable college to his home address, but the Council says there is one closer. We find the Council failed to explain the implications of naming Mrs Y’s preferred college in F’s EHC plan. We also find the Council failed to properly consider whether the other college offered a course at the required level for F. The Council will implement the remedial actions listed at the end of thi

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the complaint and any remaining unremedied personal injustice is not serious enough to warrant a further investigation by this office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly invoiced him for over £3,000 in missed contributions towards care costs. The Council has reissued the invoice showing Mr X does not owe it any money. Any injustice is not significant enough justify our involvement. Furthermore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) complained about the lack of support for her son (Y) during his transition to a post-16 institution and about non-delivery of his special educational provision. We will not investigate whether the Council ensured delivery of Y’s special educational provision as these matters are too closely linked with the appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal. We did not find fault with the Council for its role in Y’s transition to the post-16 placement.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late aunt, Mrs Y about the way the Council handled her care contribution fees. We have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision not to waive Mrs Y’s fees.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council removed her son from his residential placement at short notice without considering the impact on him. We have ended our investigation as Mrs B’s complaint is connected to her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay taking Mrs X’s request for a personal budget for her child’s education to a panel and delay in telling her of the decision. There has also been delay holding an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. A payment and issuing a new decision to give a new right of appeal to a tribunal remedies the injustice from these faults.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about social worker provision and his current social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided on the matter.

Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to secure the special educational provision set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said this affected her child’s educational attainment and overall wellbeing. Mrs X also said the Council failed to effectively address her concerns about this. We have found the Council at fault for failing to ensure the special educational provision was in place, and for failing to adequately investigate Mrs X’s concerns. We have also found the Council at fault for misadvising Mrs X about the Council’s duties and for a lack of regard to the SEND

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for Ms X’s son. Much of the complaint is late and it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability. Even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we would achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: Mrs X complained her daughter missed out on education and special educational need provision as a result of delays caused by the Council. We have found fault with the Council and it has agreed actions to remedy the loss of education and distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide support set out in an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed completing her daughter’s annual review for her education, health and care plan, failed to ensure the alternative provider put in place provision and failed to respond to her communications. The Council delayed completing the annual review, failed to put in place alternative provision following the annual review and failed to respond to some of Miss B’s communications. An apology, payment to Miss B and introduction of a process to manage annual reviews is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not obtaining the required advice and information from occupational health in time for the EHC plan to be completed within the required timescales. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and his child.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s mental capacity and its decision to authorise a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The Council is reviewing the assessment and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. If Miss X remains unhappy following the review, she can challenge it in the Court of Protection.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to send a copy of an Occupational Therapy report. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss Y complains on behalf of her mother, Ms Z, about her experiences in a residential care home. We have discontinued our investigation into Miss Y’s complaint because we do not consider she is a suitable representative for the complaint made.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to put down bus stop markings rather than the double yellow lines Mr X had requested out the front of his property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about his care provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was wrong to withdraw night time care for her daughter. She says the Council took account of incorrect information. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to facilitate contact arrangements with her child, failed to provide her with information about whether her child would be adopted and failed to provide her with travel expenses. We found fault with the Council. The Council has already made changes to how it deals with Ms X moving forwards and provided a rebate for travel expenses incurred. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £1,000 for the distress and worry caused by its fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide their son with the education and specialist provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. They also say the Council failed to provide adequate alternative education when their son was no longer able to attend school. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide full-time education for Mr and Mrs D’s son when he was out of school or record the reasons part-time provision was suitable for him. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to investigate her complaint as brought out of time. We do not find fault with the way the Council re-considered its decision about Miss X’s complaint.

Summary: Mrs C complained a care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to provide her with appropriate care, failed to treat her with dignity and compassion, failed to ensure she received suitable medical care, unreasonably restricted Mrs D’s access and influenced a second care home’s decision not to admit Mrs C. The home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to cleanse Mrs C’s room as regularly as it should, failed to carry out a risk assessment on admission, interrupted telephone calls and wrongly refused to accept Mrs C back at the home. There is no fault in the remainder of the