LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her late mother-in-law’s missing jewellery. This is because we could not make a finding on what happened to the jewellery, and it would be reasonable for Mrs B to make a claim against the provider if she believes it is responsible for the loss.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to reimburse home to school transport costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed adopting her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan when they moved to the area. She also says the Council did not meet the provision outlined in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to adhere to statutory timescales. It also failed to ensure Mrs D’s daughter received the provision outlined in her Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to issue a final EHC plan in 2021 and that there were delays in its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by the fault accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving into a restricted area and delayed supplying information, so he was obliged to pay the fine. Mr X had time to make a representation against the PCN. It would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if he wanted to contest the notice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered and determined in court.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to provide suitable alternative education prior to October 2021 when Y was unable to attend his school. There was also fault and delay in the annual review process and updating an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Y to miss out on education, delayed a right of appeal and caused unnecessary distress and expense. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and make service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to complete a review of record-keeping in its safeguarding hub which it agreed in its response to Ms B’s complaint. Having accepted that it had completed an inaccurate assessment, it also told Ms B it would notify another agency that the assessment was inaccurate, and then did not do so. It has agreed to write to the agency in question, and has agreed to complete its record-keeping review without further delay.

Summary: We investigated a complaint about the care a Care Home, Council and Trust provided to Ms G before her death. We found fault with the Trust who did not tell Miss F her mother could decline quickly and what she should expect. The Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault in the Trust’s complaint handling; it did not check the facts in the documents it sent to the Care Home. We found no fault with the Council or Care UK. These faults caused distress and confusion to Miss F. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address this injustice.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into a complaint about the Council’s assessment of the complainant’s care needs, because it is late. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has managed the complainant’s direct payments, and it has offered to reassess the complainant to address this issue. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate their complaint until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. This is because the is no sign of fault in the Council’s approach and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response and explanation already provided by the council.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused and we would not achieve more by investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the lack of full-time education for her son (Y) when attending Reception and the Council’s failure to deliver all special educational provisions (SEP) included in Y’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Mrs X said this had detrimental effect on Y’s development, caused her and her husband distress and resulted in their financial difficulties. We find the Council at fault for failing to ensure Y received all SEP included in his EHCP and fulfilling its duties under the Equality Act. The Council accepted our recommendations for personal remedies and service impro

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services actions between December 2019 and May 2020. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council social workers towards the complainant and the children in her care because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health, and Care Plan assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault, and because Mrs X can appeal the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC plan.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how Oxfordshire County Council assessed the special educational needs of her daughter. Mrs X has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how Oxfordshire County Council assessed the special educational needs of her daughter. Mrs X has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision that Mrs Y deprived herself of assets to avoid paying care costs. She says this means Mrs Y has to pay unfairly. We find the Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reviewing her son, Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan for 18 months, delayed issuing a draft amended plan for a further 12 weeks and failed to issue a final amended plan. Mrs X further complained the Council’s response to her complaint about the matter was insufficient and incorrect. There was fault in the way the Council communicated about Mr Y’s review in 2019. The Council also delayed in reviewing and amending Mr Y’s plan in 2021 and 2022. The Council agreed to pay Mr Y £1450, and Mrs X £300, to recognise the uncertainty and distress caus

Summary: Mr X complains about inconsistent decision making by the Council in approving the installation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and cycle routeways. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Miss X’s child and the late submission of a court report. The matters complained of are not separable from those subject to court action.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter received suitable full-time education for an academic year. We find some fault with the Council’s approach. It failed to intervene to secure a reintegration timetable for D quick enough. This caused Ms X the uncertainty of not knowing if D could have reintegrated more quickly. Ms X also complained the Council did not follow the statutory procedure for an annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council although we do not consider this caused Ms X a significant injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not organise alternative education when D was medically unable to attend school. D had an Education, Health and Care plan and did not receive the provisions in it for three months. The Council has apologised and should make a payment towards D’s lost education.