LGO Individual Decisions

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.

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.

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.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Miss X and paying her a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning advice the Council provided. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. This in turn caused a delay in issuing the EHC Plan. She also complained the Council has delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment as part of the EHC needs assessment. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. There was also a 10 month delay in carrying out the OT assessment. The Council

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Mrs X and paying her a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to recover outstanding care charges. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her father, Mr J’s residential care. She says as a result he was in hospital for longer than he needed to be, has been in an unsuitable care home for over a year and has had to appeal to the court of protection. We found the Council delayed acting on Mr J’s request to move abroad, which caused him some uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to remedy the distress caused.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Council issuing the complainant a penalty charge notice. This is because the complainant has appealed the notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The law says we have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her informal challenge to a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. In any event, Mrs X has now paid the penalty charge at the discounted rate of £35 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about top-up fees for accommodation without being offered of a suitable and affordable alternative. We did not find fault with the accommodation the Council offered. We found fault with some communication and recommended the Council and the NHS Trust apologise for any distress this caused to Mrs X.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to remove the tutor assigned to Ms G’s grandson. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s reports of rats from a restaurant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of an Initial Child Protection Conference. The faults in procedure were unlikely to have affected the outcome, so any injustice caused to Mrs X is not enough to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the process the Council followed to name a school in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Miss X has appealed this decision and the law does not allow us to investigate here. Nor can we investigate Miss X’s complaint about the education provision the Council secured, because this complaint is not separable from her appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline his application for a one-off carer’s direct payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council arranged a supported living placement for her daughter, Miss W, despite the placement being unaffordable for her. We find the Council failed to provide advice to Miss W about possible benefit entitlement before the placement started. This fault caused uncertainty because we do not know whether Miss W would have accepted the placement if she had been given enough information to make an informed decision. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions we have listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to use the review and appeal procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns about Mr X’s children. This is because the actions of the Council relate to the conduct of court proceedings about Mr X’s access to his children. They either were or could reasonably have been raised in court.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as there was delay providing full time education for two children with Education, Health and Care plans who moved into the area. The Council did offer travel costs for the children to stay at their old school and tuition which their parent felt was unsuitable. The Council accepted it was at fault when it considered an official complaint and offered a suitable remedy to the injustice of a payment, plus an apology before the Ombudsman considered the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement issues at the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to be able to conclude whether there was fault during the first enforcement investigation, there is not enough evidence of fault in the handling of the second investigation, and Mrs X has appealed to the Planning Inspector about the decision on her planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of any delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take planning enforcement action against a number of alleged breaches of planning control at a site near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the enforcement issues, and some of the works do not cause the complainant a significant injustice.