LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs N complained about a shortfall in funding from the Council to meet the needs of a child with special educational needs who attended the preschool she runs. The Council declined to pay for the support the child received between 17 April and 29 May 2023. We found fault with the decision to end the funding on 17 April 2023 since it did not take account of the needs of the child. The Council has agreed to pay the preschool for the support it provided.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council planned care for her son, Mr K. The Council took too long to start planning Mr K’s transition from children’s services to adult social care. Despite its best efforts, the Council failed to provide overnight respite care and has not fully supported Mr K’s mother to arrange this and use direct payments. The Council’s shortcomings have caused Mr K’s mother distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment, and work with Mrs X to arrange respite care.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 have decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint about Ms Y paying more than she should for her adult social care. The Council has upheld the complaint and has agreed an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms D complains about faults in the Council’s safeguarding investigation into her mother’s injury. We find fault by the Council regarding its handling of the investigation. It has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to put in place speech and language therapy for her son. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deliver her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay and have agreed a payment for the distress and frustration caused.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide provision for her son Y, causing frustration and distress. We find fault with the Council for delay, and agree with the remedy it has put forward in its complaint response.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the wording in a section of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. If Ms X disagrees with the content of the plan she has a right of appeal to a tribunal which it is reasonable for her to use.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the time taken by the Council to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her child following their annual reviews. As a result the child has not received the support they should have. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and the loss of her child’s special educational provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against Ms X for unauthorised alterations made to the public highway in front of her property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of faut by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. She said the Council had delayed identifying a specialist placement for her son. She also said the Council’s communication had been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. To address this injustice caused by fault we recommend the Council apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the statutory timescales.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not provide alternative provision to her child when they were too ill to go to school. That is because the decision about alternative provision is not separable from her appeal about the content of an Education, Health, and Care plan. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take actions over an obstructed footpath. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about matters relating to her partner, Mr X's, care in hospital and his discharge to a nursing home under the discharge to assess procedures. This is because they are not Council services. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about Mr X’s placement at a nursing home. This is because it was funded by the NHS and not the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate these complaints that the Council failed to provide full-time education for the complainant’s children. The complaints about the period before the Education Health and Care Plans were issued are late and there are no grounds to consider them now. We cannot consider the complaints about matters after the Education Health and Care Plans were issued because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the

Summary: We will not investigate these complaints that the Council failed to provide full-time education for the complainant’s children. The complaints about the period before the Education Health and Care Plans were issued are late and there are no grounds to consider them now. We cannot consider the complaints about matters after the Education Health and Care Plans were issued because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer because there is no evidence that those actions caused the complainant a demonstrable injustice and investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb or her request for H-bar markings. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in reviewing her child’s Education Health and Care plan and its withdrawal of support during the school year 2022 to 2023. Miss X said the lack of support severely affected her child’s education and wellbeing and so she wanted it reinstated. We found there was avoidable delay by the Council. As the Council had completed the review, it agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £600 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble she was caused by its delay.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her child on a reduced timetable in mainstream education since September 2020. Miss X also complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan in the statutory timescales. We found fault with the Council failing to keep Miss X’s child’s reduced timetable under review and for delays in reviewing the Education Health and Care Plan outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £1,050 for her child’s potential lost education and £500 for the avoidable distre

Summary: Mr Y’s family complained the Council failed to provide much of Mr Y’s Education Health and Care Plan since April 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Speech and Language Therapy to Mr Y across two different periods totalling 18 hours of missed provision. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide tuition for Mr Y from February 2023 to September 2023 and for delays in confirming its decision to cease Mr Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to provide a rebate equivalent to the cost of the missed Speech and Language Therapy input. The C

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council naming a mainstream school for her daughter, Y’s. It is appropriate for Miss X to appeal to the Tribunal about that. The Council offered to pay her £400 to recognise its delay in finalising Y’s annual review and its poor communication, which is appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed reassessing her child, Child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan needs within the statutory timescales and the Council did not provide the reassessment decision. Mrs X also complained the Council communicated poorly with her. The Council was at fault and will apologise for the frustration caused to Mrs X by the delay in informing her if it would reassess Child Y’s needs.