LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the actions of the Council in relation to their role as foster parents. The Council was at fault when it delayed in sourcing new therapeutic support after stopping the existing support. It was also at fault when it failed to clearly explain to Mr and Mrs X the methods they could use to address the children’s behaviour. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X, make a symbolic payment of £300 each to acknowledge the distress this caused them and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to support Ms X’s application for a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not accepting a complaint about a social worker changing a report written for a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Another body is better placed than us to consider the complaint about the social worker’s professional actions and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal can consider the content of the social worker’s report. It would not be productive for us to investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint where we will not consider the substantive matters complained of.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint, as the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage one of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in issuing her daughter’s final EHC plan. We find fault as there was significant delay in the Council issuing the final EHC plan. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her daughter.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council delayed in issuing its decision to end Mr A’s EHC Plan. The Council has now accepted there was a delay in issuing this decision. The Ombudsman also finds the Council at fault for failing to maintain the Plan while Mrs Y appealed its decision to the SEND Tribunal. This caused Mrs Y and her son significant distress. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and her son and make them several payments. The Council has also agreed to make certain service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide advice and support when she cared for her brother, Z, for fifteen weeks because he was not able to stay at home. The Council was at fault for not clarifying the basis on which Z was staying with her, delay in making a referral to the council where Ms X lives and failing to provide appropriate support. It should apologise, make a payment to reflect the avoidable stress caused and make changes to its processes to prevent this happening again in the future.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to amend and issue a draft and final Education, Health and Care plan for her son, Z, in line with the statutory timescales following an annual review in January 2021. Ms X further complained the Council failed to provide Z with the provision in his plan for 15 months and an appropriate full-time education for 5 months. There was fault in the Council delaying amending and issuing a final plan, and in providing some of the specified provision. There was no fault in how the Council considered the appropriateness of Z’s education. The Council agreed to p

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances surrounding Dr A’s detention under Section 2. The Trust and Council have already investigated the matter and acted to improve their services. It is unlikely an Ombudsmen’s investigation would achieve more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her complaint. This is because we will not investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Summary: We uphold Mrs Y’s complaint, as the Council breached data protection obligations about Mrs Y’s child. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Mrs Y to recognise the emotional impact of the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the re-siting of a bus shelter closer to Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to him to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in sending invoices for her mother’s contribution towards her care home charges, leading her to receive a large invoice she did not expect. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the explanation and responses already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

investigate this complaint about highway layouts approved by the Council for adoption. This was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide appropriate education and special educational provision to Ms X’s son. It was also at fault for not reviewing Ms X’s son’s Education Health and Care plan within the required timeframe. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment for loss of education and special educational provision and review its practices for Annual Reviews of Education, Health and Care plans.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s public consultation on proposals in its Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. The complainant has not suffered significant enough personal injustice.

Summary: Miss B complains on behalf of her partner who has health and care needs (Mr W). She says the quality of the care provided by the Council’s third party care provider has been poor. Further, Miss B says care staff were inappropriate and her complaints led the care provider to unfairly give notice for the care to be terminated. We found the care provided failed to provide an adequate level of care. The Council is ultimately responsible for the provision of care and so we consider it was at fault. This caused Mr W an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a defect in the road outside his property. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to take immediate action. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision it would be reasonable for him to go to court.