LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms D complained the Council sent her a bill for her late grandfather’s (Mr X) care, eight months after he died and after his estate was distributed.The Council is at fault for poor communication which caused a delay in it being notified of Mr X’s death. This caused Ms D emotional distress and will potentially cause her financial distress. I have recommended the Council asks Ms D for information about the debt and estate so it can reconsider the amount. I have also recommended the Council offers Ms D a payment plan for any remaining debt.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council pursued him and his brother, Mr Y, for several years for a debt which the Council had previously agreed to write off. The Council was at fault. It had pursued Mr X for a debt it had previously agreed to cancel. The Council has already apologised. It has agreed to also pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council imposing controls on how he can contact the Council. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters related to the Council’s section 7 court report. We have no jurisdiction to look at matters that form part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in ceasing the complainant’s foster care payments. This is because

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s evidence given to a Court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan decisions. She appealed one decision to the Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect her to appeal another. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has offered for a short delay in the process.

Summary: Mrs L complained the Council did not review her son’s education, health and care plan for several years, and then issued an inadequate plan. However, we propose to discontinue our investigation, because we consider Mrs L should have raised this matter sooner, and because she had a right of appeal about the plan if she considered it was not suitable.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions to stop her child’s direct payments for social care provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to escalate her complaint from 2023, and because her recent complaint is still being considered by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in completing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review and failed to carry out a reassessment or communicate with him. As a result, his son did not receive the required assistance to make a successful transition from education to a work-based placement or apprenticeship. We find fault causing a lost opportunity to ensure a better transition for Y and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment for this and to remind staff of the importance of completing annual reviews on time and how to deal with request

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide education to Miss Y for eight months, losing the paperwork from an annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan, and delay issuing an amended Plan. Miss Y did not receive any of the provision in her Plan, causing significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, and act to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs P complained the Council did not make arrangements to receive alternative provision when her daughter’s attendance at school deteriorated. We do not consider the Council was at fault for its decision not to arrange alternative provision, but we find fault for the Council’s extensive delays in responding to Mrs P and for arranging a meeting it had promised, which caused distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy to reflect this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in issuing invoices for his father’s care and support and about not being told his father would be charged a contribution. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the delay in completing the financial assessment did not cause any significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for her child when they were not able to attend school, and inappropriately took steps to take formal action against them. We did not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council shared incorrect property ownership details. This is because there is no good reason why Mr X cannot take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her with a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when determining her application to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has a queue of cases waiting, which it has triaged and prioritised. It has explained this to the complainant and apologised for the impact of the delay which is due to demand on its service. This is a service failure, but it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome to the actions the Council has already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of various issues related to the proximity of a school close to Ms X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failings of safeguarding and educational provision when the Council was providing Mrs X’s child with home tuition. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any robust conclusions or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council has assessed his father, Mr Y’s finances and calculated his contribution towards the cost of his care. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mr Y’s finances. However the delays in responding to Mr X’s complaints amount to fault, for which the Council should apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a data breach because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to address that. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in court or about reports prepared for court proceedings.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in finding his son an alternative school placement when it became aware that he would have to leave his current placement. We have found some fault by the Council causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to provide the recommended remedy. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation before it decided to proceed with implementing a road closure. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice. In any case we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because the Council offered a suitable remedy. We cannot investigate parts of Miss X’s complaints because she used her right to appeal to a Tribunal. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaints about how her child was taught in school because the law says we cannot. We will not investigate the remaining parts of Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s fostering application process. It is unlikely we would find enough significant Council fault to warrant further investigation.