LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s alternative provision and special educational needs provision after March 2024. We found the Council was at fault for not monitoring what provision the child received and if it was suitable for his needs. This meant that Mrs X’s son likely missed out on education and support he was entitled to. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a remedy for the injustice she experienced.

Summary: Miss D complained the Council stopped the taxi her son used to get to a day centre and said he should use his Motability car instead. We find some fault with how the Council carried out the transition. But we have not found fault with the Council’s decision to change the transport arrangements. The fault we have found will have caused some distress . The Council has agreed to our recommended apology and symbolic payment.

We will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about delay issuing her son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan because it is too old. We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about B’s education from 17 October 2023 because of her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. That leaves just five weeks we can consider. There is not enough potential injustice here to justify investigation by us.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has delivered social care for Y. The Council was at fault for not commencing a stage two statutory investigation under the Children Act 1989, causing distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty, conduct a stage two investigation, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Ms A complained that the Council did not appropriately support her child when she was unable to attend her school due to serious mental health issues. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice as the child has missed out on education. The Council agreed to apologise and make a recognition payment.

Summary: Mr X complained about a failure to respond to his concerns about a homecare provider and about a failure to carry out a proper review of Ms Y’s care and support plan or agree a direct payment. We upheld the complaint. There was a delay in changing provider, a failure to give an explanation about the response to potential safeguarding issues and a failure to communicate with Mr X about whether he could manage a direct payment for Ms Y. The fault caused avoidable confusion and distress. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and take actions set out in this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters concerning his child’s education and social care support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Councils’ decision not to consider Mr X’s complaint until court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed Miss Y’s care needs and that it did not complete a carer’s assessment for her. We find the Council at fault, causing uncertainty and frustration and meaning Mrs X had to provide additional support for Miss Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales following a Tribunal decision and did not ensure her son, Y, received the special educational provision set out in his EHCP. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. These faults caused Y to miss education and support he was entitled to, and led to significant distress and uncertainty for Miss X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has breached the Equality Act by not making a disabled parking bay enforceable. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child, Y, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. We did not find the Council was at fault because it was satisfied with action taken by the school to reintegrate Y back to school during the time we were able to investigate. We did not investigate what happened from April 2024 because Ms X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timeframes. She also complained he missed education and specialist provision he is entitled to and that communication with the Council was poor. We found fault by the Council in all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her son’s missed provision and the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to her.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision and the specialist provision set out in his Education Health and Care Plan when they moved to its area. She also complained it took too long to issue her son’s final Education Health and Care Plan and communicated poorly with her. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her symbolic payment to acknowledge Y’s lost provision and the frustration and uncertainty caused to her.

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delay in the annual review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has already offered a remedy for this part of her complaint. Nor will we investigate her complaint the final plan is out of date, because Miss X had a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect her to have used this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about because it is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. In any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints process. We find the Council at fault for failing to complete the statutory complaints process. This caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, progress Mr X’s complaint and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for changes to school transport arrangements for his son. We have not seen enough evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child. This is because Mrs X appealed those decisions to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate earlier delays because this is a late complaint. Finally, we will not investigate a complaint about delays in subsequently issuing a plan, because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because the Council will offer a face to face mobility assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to enforce parking regulations on the complainant’s road. The Council has taken appropriate action in response to the concerns raised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a bruise Mr Y sustained. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning her child’s education. Miss X has used her right of appeal meaning we are unable to investigate some elements. Other elements are either late, not affected by fault or we could not achieve a different outcome if we were to investigate them.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education. The Council was at fault because it failed to arrange alternative education, secure the provision outlined in her education, health and care (EHC) Plan and delayed issuing the final EHC Plan following a review. The faults identified resulted in a loss of education, delayed appeal rights and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by providing an apology and a payment for the loss of education, delay and uncertainty.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to respond to her request for an urgent annual review of her child Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council, including a failure to consider its duty to arrange alternative educational provision or secure special educational provision, failures in communication, poor complaint handling and a failure to amend Y’s Plan within the required timescales. This caused avoidable frustration, uncertainty and a financial loss. The Council will apologise and make payments.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to carry out an occupational therapy assessment for his child Y. We found delay by the Council which caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect the distress. It has already increased staffing levels in the relevant team and this will minimise the chance of recurrence.