LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make alternative provision for the complainant’s son while he has been unable to attend school. This is because the complaint has been upheld by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in relation to its planning for the complainant’s son’s transition from children’s to adult social care. Whilst only limited services have been provided since the complainant’s son became 18, there is no fault by the Council as it offered suitable provision that the complainant would not accept until recently.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking seriously his safety concerns relating to a tree outside a building for which he is responsible, nor its decision not to remove or reduce the tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessments of and decisions on the matter to warrant us investigating.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not provided her daughter, Y, with Occupational Therapy (OT) specified in her Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) since May 2022. Miss X also complained the Council has not provided a personal budget when she requested this and its communication has been difficult. Miss X says she has been funding Y’s education and this has put financial pressure on her family. Miss X has been put to time and trouble to complain. There was fault in the way the Council communicated with Miss X, delays in dealing with the personal budget request and not providing Occ

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take children into care and its subsequent contact with members of their family. This is because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council making Mr X’s child subject to a child protection plan and later removing the child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs M complains about the payments she received to transport her daughter, G, to school. The Council has agreed an additional payment so Mrs M receives the equivalent of its new and improved ‘disabled travel assistance payment’ from its introduction.

Summary: Mrs X complained about Mr Y’s needs assessments and mental capacity assessment. Also, the care packages and charges for care. We found fault in the mental capacity assessment and care and support plan. We recommended the Council review its training in these areas and ensure Mr Y did not pay for two care workers. The Council has agreed to this.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council is failing to determine definitive map modification applications in a timely way which may adversely affect the available evidence and has caused him unnecessary time and trouble. We have found fault by the Council in failing to meet deadlines set but consider the agreed action of a review of measures to address the backlog of applications provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the production and content of a child and family assessment because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the living arrangements of Mr X’s children.

Summary: There was no fault in how the County Council worked with the housing authority to get Miss B’s kitchen adapted. It is not clear however, that the County Council properly considered its power to intervene when problems with the work was not corrected for many months. I have not recommended the Council take action to remedy this, because, given the circumstances, it is unlikely it would have decided to intervene.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about that the Council committed a data breach by accessing her private information without her consent and sharing it with others. This is because complaints about breaches of data protection regulations are better considered by the Information Commissioner.

Council’s decision not to prune or remove a tree it owns outside his house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process, nor sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X or his family, to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to provide Mr X with affordable options for his parents, Mr and Mrs P’s, care placements. As a result, Mr X was denied the option to choose between a care home with no top up fee and a more affordable one. The Council has agreed to repay, or write off, the top ups Mr X has paid or owes and make service improvements. There was no fault in how the Council decided to take the value of the Mr and Mrs P’s property into account when deciding what they could afford to pay for their care. There was also no fault in the support provided to Mrs P before s

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not ensure he had adequate care support and left him in unsuitable accommodation. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making on Mr X’s care. But we found fault in the Council’s delay in securing Mr X new accommodation. We recommended the Council apologise and pay Mr X £300 for distress and uncertainty.

Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the assessment process for her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. Miss X also complained the Council has not provided enough alternative education while Y could not attend school. Miss X complained about the content and information collated for Y’s EHC plan. Miss X says this has caused distress to Y and she has missed education. Miss X says funding Y’s education has put her under financial pressure and she has been put to time and trouble to complain. There was fault in the Council’s delay in the EHC process and the Council has not

Summary: Mr X complained the Council threatened to remove an obstruction he placed outside his property to prevent vehicles expelling exhaust fumes near his home. There was no fault in how the Council told Mr X about its powers and duty to remove obstructions from the highway which was in line with relevant legislation.

Ms X complained the Council has not ensured her childcare provider, a nursery, issues clear and transparent invoices. And, it has not ensured she has fair access to a free place. She says she has spent time seeking clarity and suffered distress due to spending large sums on childcare she expected to be free.

Summary: We uphold Mrs J’s complaint about the care and treatment provided to her husband by the Council and the Trust. We found fault with the handling of Mr J’s discharge, the management of his care and needs and consideration of Mrs J’s needs as a carer. This fault caused Mr and Mrs J significant distress. The Council and Trust will apologise to Mr and Mrs J and pay a financial remedy. They will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has completed a financial assessment. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard Mr B in 2014 - 2015. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. We will not investigate his complaint about the steps taken by the Council to restrict Mr B’s contact with it because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers in the course of child protection action. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Summary: Dr X complains the Council failed to provide all the special educational provision as set out in his son’s EHC plan. We find fault with the Council for failing to provide all the SEN provisions. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused to Dr X and his son.