LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We found fault with the end of life care provided to Mrs Y by the Nursing Home. The Nursing Home pay Mrs Y’s daughter, Ms X, a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and the events leading to a death. It is unlikely we would add to investigations already completed, and we understand there will be an inquest. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to properly maintain public highways. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mrs X wants to challenge the school named in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan, then it is reasonable she uses her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Mr A has complained about a council and an integrated care board in relation to a lack of carer support for him, a poor transition between services, and a lack of adequate safeguarding action. He said this caused him and his son distress, and he suffered financial loss. We found fault with a lack of carer support provided to Mr A. The council and integrated care board agreed to our recommendations to address the issues Mr A had suffered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s parenting assessment. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to disregard Mrs Y’s property when it assessed her finances and its refusal to offer her a Deferred Payment Agreement. The dispute at the centre of the complaint relies on interpretation of the law. The courts are therefore best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complaining is seeking. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not writing an Education Health and Care Plan as agreed in an appeal settlement. She has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs and Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure suitable education and special educational needs support was in place for their child D. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss SEN provision. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review relevant processes and review its complaint handling in this case.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan, or about how the Council delivered the content of Y’s EHC Plan to them. This is because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mrs X's appeal to the tribunal about her child Y's Education Health and Care Plan means we cannot investigate related matters from June 2023 onwards. The Council made its decision that Y could go to the special school named in Y's EHC plan without fault. It did not, therefore, have a duty to provide alternative education for Y. The Council did not have a duty to provide transport for Y to specialist provision arranged by Y's school at a different location.

Summary: There was fault as there was a delay in the financial assessment and the Council delayed informing Mr and Mrs B what Mr B’s financial contribution to the care package cost would be. The Council also failed to send Mr and Mrs B a copy of the assessment and care plan. The Council has already reduced its invoice so the financial injustice has been addressed. The Council has also agreed to apologise and to carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s involvement in three of Ms X’s family member’s cases. It concerns historical matters that we could not fairly investigate now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council misled her and wrongly said her child had been offered a place at a school. Mrs X said this meant she and her child had prepared to start at this school but it was in vain. She said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has already apologised. It has also agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the level of injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance because decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: the Council took too long to amend Ms M’s son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a review. We have recommended a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay. Ms M disagreed with the amended Plan and appealed to the Tribunal. We cannot investigate complaints about matters someone has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about fees charged by a nursery in receipt of government funded childcare money. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Adults’ Health and Care team failed to correspond with its Special Educational Needs team. This is because the alleged fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the complainant’s lawn caused by a fallen tree. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to pursue their claim for compensation with the courts. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with repairs to a footpath and there is also no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating a complaint about this matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not assess his needs properly, and wrongly decided he was ineligible for care and support. We found there was no fault in the Council’s assessments of Mr X’s care needs. However, the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mr X’s request for a video call assessment. This caused Mr X frustration and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and reconsider his request.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s decision not to provide his child with a place at School Z. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her son being removed from her care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference by the Council as there would be no worthwhile outcome from doing so. The decision the Council reached was one within the range available to it, regardless of not having interviewing Mr X before completing an assessment. And an erroneous comment by a police representative was corrected on the record of the child protection conference. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to deal with a complaint about any remaining disputed data or non-disclosure of data.