LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and communication in preparing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision to reject Mrs X’s application for school transport allowance for her son. The decision was made in line with national and local policy.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council was biased against him following a false allegation made by his ex-partner, which led to the Council implementing a child in need plan for his son. We do not find the Council to be at fault in this matter. We have found fault with the Council’s complaint handling and have recommended an apology and financial payment to address the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s Trading Standards department misled her into believing it would take court action on her behalf against a builder responsible for defective works to her property. She says this caused her distress and unnecessary time and trouble. The Council is at fault. There is no evidence the Council intentionally misled her, but the lack of clear records leads to uncertainty about what Ms X was told at the start of the investigation. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 for the uncertainty, distress and time and trouble caused to her. It will also revi

Summary: Ms M complains the Council refused her application for home to school transport for her son, B, because she did not list the nearest school as her first preference when applying for places. Ms M complains the Council’s decision, and its policy, are unfair. There is no evidence of fault to justify further investigation by the Ombudsman. Ultimately, it would be for a Court to decide whether the Council’s approach complies with legislation and government guidance. No amount of investigation by the Ombudsman is likely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. Matters before March 2022 are not separable from those that were before a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and there is not enough evidence of injustice since then to warrant investigation. We can as yet reach no view on matters in the future.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the reablement service the Council provided for her and her late husband, and the care charges they were asked to pay. We have found fault by the Council, in failing to provide clear information about the review of their reablement care, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, waiving some initial charges, and making a payment to Mrs Y to reflect her upset and service improvements.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its investigation without further delay and to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the quality of care provided to Mr Y by Kibworth Court Residential Home, on behalf of the Council, and the Council’s response to, and investigation of, her concerns about his care. We have found fault by Kibworth Court in failing to keep accurate records, and properly assess Mr Y’s skin condition, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy Kibworth Court’s faults by apologising to Mrs Y and making a payment to reflect her distress, and providing evidence of the action taken to improve Kibworth Court’s service.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in care of the complainants child. This is because the matter has recently been decided by the courts. We cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the siting of a bus stop. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a speed traffic survey the Council carried out during the Covid lockdown. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and because the planning application to which it related has since been withdrawn.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Miss X’s grandchild from her daughter’s care. The matters complained of are not separable from the decision of a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y’s care at the end of her life. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place education, health and care provision for Y, as set out in his plan. She also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for Y was he was not attending school. This meant Y missed out on educational provision. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns of speeding and vehicles parking on grass verges in his locale. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council removed a fare paying school bus service without consulting parents. Mrs B says she relies on the service to get her child to school and is now suffering significant financial loss due to having to work reduced hours. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council not consulting on the change and not reviewing its position following a further exemption.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council removed a fare paying school bus service without consulting parents. Mrs B says she relies on the service to get her child to school and has now had to change her working hours. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council not consulting on the change and not reviewing its position following a further exemption.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council removed a fare paying school bus service without consulting parents. Mr B says he relies on the service to get his child to school. He says the Council’s decision is having a significant financial impact as he needs to take time off work to take his child to school. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council not consulting on the change and not reviewing its position following a further exemption.

, on behalf of his grandmother Mrs Y, about the Council’s failure to provide information on care home charges, poor communication and delay. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it apologise to Mrs Y, pay £200 for distress and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in making amendments to an Education, Health and Care Plan after annual reviews. However, this has not caused a significant injustice. The child remained in the same placement and appeal rights while delayed, were not used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to allow Mr X to install a dropped kerb at his property. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s delay and refusal to amend a safety plan. It is unlikely we can achieve the outcome she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the council dealt with safeguarding concerns because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We cannot investigate the contents of a social work assessment because it has been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.