LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an incident that led to the complainant removing their child from school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating most complaints about what happens in schools. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with matters after the incident occurred.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council has already offered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel a meeting, or allegations of defamation of character. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s cancellation of the meeting. And we cannot consider allegations of defamation, these are matters for the courts.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The Council was waiting for information which meant the financial assessment took longer than it should have. The Council did include a Personal Expenses Allowance in the financial assessment.

Summary: Mr D complains about abuse and racism whilst he was in the Council’s care as a child in the 1970s and 1980s. We have ended our investigation because the complaint is late and there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Section 7 report and the conduct of a council social worker. We cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could have been discussed in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider Mr X’s appeal against its decision to refuse his application to be a school transport driver following a negative disclosure barring service (DBS)check. There is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to fund Mrs D’s care needs in the community rather than in residential care. This is because the Council has determined Mrs D’s care needs can be met in the community and so there is insufficient evidence of the decision causing a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delays in its Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment, failed to agree a necessary EOTAS provision budget and failed to provide provision under section 19. I have found fault with the Council’s actions. There were significant delays in the assessment, a failure to review provision while C was out of school and fault in how it decided the EOTAS budget. The Council will apologise, act to remedy the loss of education and delayed appeal rights and review its policy to prevent the reoccurrence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the care and service she and the late Mr Y received at Scalford Court Nursing Home, arranged by the Council. We found fault in the way the Care Provider dealt with Mrs X and Mr Y, including during his end of life care. This caused significant and undue distress at an already difficult time. The Council has agreed to apologise and take actions to avoid similar problems in future.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled the process of amending his daughter’s education, health and care plan in preparation for transfer to secondary school. We found several failings in the process. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs U complains the care home the Council placed her father in was not safe for him. And it did not take their concerns seriously, or communicate with them. The Ombudsman cannot say the placement was unsuitable. But we do find fault with some actions of the care provider, its record keeping and communications with Mrs U. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road sign clearance. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because Mr Y can reasonably be expected to raise the issue with the courts, who are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal. This places the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council incurred delays in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for her daughter. She says the lack of agreed provision contributed to her daughter falling behind in her education. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and anxiety to herself and her daughter. We found the Council to be at fault. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: There was delay and fault in the way the Council carried out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. The Council failed to involve the parent in the decision about what advice to obtain or consider if a new health assessment was required. There was also delay in consulting the parent’s preference of a specialist school. This caused frustration and delay. The Council will apologise, make a time and trouble payment and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about lack of communication from the Council regarding her mother’s, Mrs C’s, care charges. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to repair a land drain on private property. The complaint is too late, and we have seen no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about his mother’s Council commissioned adult social care not meeting the required Care Quality Commission standards. This is because the Council has apologised to Mr B for his upset, and we could not provide a remedy for any injustice to his mother who has sadly died. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr B.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed making a decision on her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review causing distress and uncertainty. We found fault as the Council failed to deal with the annual review within the timescales required. The Council accepts our recommendation to make a payment to Ms X so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has named a special school for her son’s education which is no longer meeting his special educational needs. Mrs X has the right to appeal the latest education health care plan to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs B complained on her own behalf and that of her family, including her husband and seven children, including four looked-after children that Mr and Mrs B agreed to care for in 2017. She complained the Council had failed to find a satisfactory solution to provide enough living space for them all. This was Mrs B’s second complaint, after an earlier investigation found the Council had not made a satisfactory offer of support. On this occasion, we found the Council had made a largely satisfactory offer of support, although we found fault in the time taken to make that offer. The Council