LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to put in place suitable full-time education for his son Y between December 2022 and April 2024. This is because the Council considers Y’s school suitable to meet his special educational needs and his non-attendance at school is a consequence of its decisions firstly to refuse to carry out an assessment of his needs and then to name the school in his Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We have decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly sending a letter to Ms X’s home address after receiving a referral about domestic abuse. The Council has upheld the complaint and has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice by an effective apology and a payment of £500.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to act on his request for social care records. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. This complaint is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X complaint about the decision to remove her children from her care. The law says we cannot investigate matters that have been considered by the Court.

Mr X says the Council has failed to respond to his request for information made over six months ago. We will not investigate. This is because this complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code on which complaints we should investigate. It is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as it is better placed to investigate.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her request for a reassessment of her child’s special educational needs, a request for a personal budget and her complaints about these matters causing distress and loss of educational provision. We found fault because the Council delayed dealing with the reassessment of needs request and personal budget request. And we found fault by the Council in responding to Ms X’s complaints about both issues. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the education of the complainant’s child. This is because the issue of

Summary: We found fault with the Council in its failure to arrange alternative provision for the complainant’s son (Y), when reviewing his Education Health and Care Plan and when communicating with the complainant (Miss X). We also found fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint. The Council has accepted its fault and recognised the injustice it caused to Y and Miss X. The remedies offered by the Council were not enough. The Council agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments and to send this decision to its Partnership and Assurance Board to review.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s education since March 2023. I cannot investigate matters between March and November 2023 because they are outside of our jurisdiction as Mrs X had appealed to the SEND tribunal. Mrs X should first complain to the Council about matters after November 2023.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue refunds for two transport SaverCards the complainant no longer needs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to the complainant.

Miss X complained about how the Council provided a suitable education for daughter, Y, and how it met Miss X’s needs as a carer. There was fault in how the Council delayed reviewing Y’s Education Health and Care plan, failed to keep her education under review when she was not attending school, failed to assess Miss X’s needs as a carer and how it communicated with her. This caused Y to miss out on some education and caused both Miss X and Y significant, avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay them a financial remedy and make arrangements to review their social care needs. It a

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his son Y’s education. The Council is at fault because it delayed dealing with funding levels and delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Y has not had an updated EHCP, has missed special educational needs provision and remains uncertain whether he may have missed further provision. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £1000 for distress and uncertainty, pay Mr X £600 for missed provision and issue a final EHCP.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to not provide her son with transport to school since 2020. She said the family have incurred transport mileage costs since then that could have been spent on extra support for her son. We will not investigate matters before 2023 and we do not find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overgrown tree next to the complainant’s property. The Council has proposed action which is a satisfactory way to address the matter, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to pursue a court remedy for any damage to his property.

Summary: We uphold complaints Miss Q has made about the service she received from a Care Provider (Abbots Care) which the Council contracted to provide care to her disabled child. We also find the Council failed to provide enough support to Miss Q after the Care Provider withdrew its service. These actions caused distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it will take to remedy this injustice to Miss Q as well as improving its service to avoid a repeat.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly reduced the number of hours of direct payment she receives for her care and support needs. And has failed to properly consider her disability related expenses. Miss X says the Council’s actions have had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reassessed Miss X’s care and support needs. However the Council’s failure to provide full information and properly advise Miss X regarding disability related expenses is fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about alternative educational provision, the assessment of her child’s special educational needs, the Council’s conduct in relation to a Tribunal, and transport to a school. Each of the matters complained of is outside our legal powers, and where discretion to waive that exists, there is no good reason to do so.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing reviews of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) including a delay in the year she was transferring to secondary school causing frustration and uncertainty. The Council took over a year to issue the final EHC Plan and missed the statutory timescale in the transition year. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in amending Y’s Education Health and Care Plan, issuing a decision to re-assess his needs, refusing to commission specialist assessments and a failure to ensure he received the therapies and equipment set out in his existing Plan. The Council will apologise, make payments to reflect lost provision and issue Y’s final Plan without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care his late father Mr Y received at a care home commissioned by the Council. Investigation would not add to previous safeguarding and complaint investigations, lead to a different outcome, nor achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged inaccuracies in Council evidence and alleged lying in court. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either were or could have been raised during court action. Any continuing dispute about parental fitness would be for a court to decide.

Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. The Council has apologised and offered a financial remedy to Mr X. To remedy the injustice suffered, the Council should increase the offer of the financial payment to Mr X, to be in line with our Guidance on Remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.