LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a blue badge application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to comply with the statutory timeframes for completing an annual review and failed to complete the actions recommended in its stage two complaint response. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This caused Mrs C distress, frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right to appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs C to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council unfairly restricted communication with him. The Council accepts it did not follow the correct process when it did this. We found the Council at fault. The Council has apologised and lifted the restrictions in response to Mr X's complaint. It has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging an officer did not keep information confidential. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Council’s response.

Summary: The Council failed to complete Y’s annual review and amend Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also failed to consider an interim review when Y’s alternative provision failed and assess whether the provision met Y’s needs. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty and meant Y did not receive the entirety of their Special Educational Needs provision for three and a half terms. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to fund additional respite hours and that is has failed to make guarantees about future care. This is because there is no evidence of fault, and we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove provision from the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s care and support needs. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a safeguarding enquiry, best interest process and needs review and for inconsistent communication. This caused Mr Y and his representatives distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise and provide an action plan on how it will complete the best interest process.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative provision after she stopped attending school for medical reasons. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in considering its duties under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 and its failure to document its decision making. These faults caused Mrs X upset and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her to reflect her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s social care report for court. The matter complained about is being considered by the courts and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint because Mr X can take the matter to Social Work England.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council’s Education, Health and Care Plan process failed her son, X. Miss B says X has been placed in an unsuitable placement and is receiving little to no education. We found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failing to consider its section 42 duty once it was aware X was not attending school. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Miss B and X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice ca

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a petition as Mr X could have sought a formal review of this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to Mrs X’s mental capacity. This is because we do not have consent from Mrs X to investigate, and nor do we believe Mrs Y can make a complaint about these actions, on Mrs X’s behalf as her representative.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection action as it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s replies to her complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council managed her care needs after the previous arrangement broke down and it did not provide her with the support or hours she needed. We found the Council at fault for significant delays with a reassessment of her needs and how it decided her care hours. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment, and take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to repair a dangerous pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to take the Council to court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing the amended Education, Health and Care Plan following a tribunal decision in May 2023. The amended plan was provided 31 weeks late and the required provision was not put in place until May 2024 and then not all of it. This resulted in Ms X’s son missing out on suitable education and caused distress to them both. A financial remedy for the distress and lost education provision is agreed.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. And that her child, Y, missed education because of illness. There was a delay of four months in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. There was also a failure to adequately monitor Y’s education when they were ill for extended periods of time and not in school. A payment and apology remedies the injustice from the delay and uncertainty to Miss X and Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s son was not provided with temporary washing aids. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s in-year admissions process. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to reach a finding of fault. If Mr X believes the Council’s admission arrangements are unlawful it is a matter for the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Mr X’s claim the Council’s actions have led to him suffering a financial loss is best considered by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet someone’s adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decisions. The Council has decided the care package based on proper reviews and professional assessments. Even though the complainant disagrees with the Council, the Ombudsman could not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she suffered an injury due to the Council’s failure to remove a dangerous tree. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.