LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make suitable education provision for Y when the family moved into the area. The Council was at fault as it delayed in making education provision for Y, failed to explain why it considered a school was suitable, delayed in carrying out an annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in issuing an amended Plan. This meant Y missed education provision between March and July 2024 and the faults caused distress to Mrs X. The Council has appropriately remedied the loss of education provision between April and July 2024 but it

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to decline Mr Y’s application for school transport assistance. Mrs X says Mr Y will not be able to access his education if transport assistance is not provided. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Mrs X’s application or appeals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the actions of a Council-commissioned care provider led to his wife’s death. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. If Mr X considers the Council liable for her death, he can take the matter to court.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide her children with education or with the special educational needs support set out in their education, health and care plans. I have discontinued my investigation into one part of the complaint. We found fault in the other part. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the loss of education and SEND provision for one of her sons.

Summary: Mrs M complains the Council failed to arrange alternative education for her daughter, G, when she became unable to attend school. The Council relied on G’s school to make a referral even though the Council’s inclusion service was aware of problems. The Council has not considered its duty to make alternative arrangements for G’s education despite knowing she has not attended school since March 2024. The Council has agreed to consider its duty and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has managed her child’s education provision. This is because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays issuing her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has issued a final plan, apologised and made a suitable payment to remedy any injustice caused. Further investigation would therefore not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to pay a Care Provider for its resident’s care. The courts are best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan when she moved into its area. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure the provision set out in Y’s plan, causing a loss of education and uncertainty The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mrs X’s complaint about inaccurate information held by the Council. Other matters would first need to be raised through the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing her daughter an Education Health and Care Plan because it has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice the delay caused Mrs X. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s refusal to carry out an assessment and its decisions on the contents of the final Plan because Mrs X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not deal with her application to renew a blue badge in line with law or government guidance. There was fault causing injustice because the Council did not deal with the application in line with the Equality Act 2010 or with blue badge guidance. This caused avoidable uncertainty and distress about the outcome had the Council considered Ms X’s case properly. The Council will issue an apology, make a small symbolic payment to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress and reconsider her case.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his reasonable adjustments. He says this caused him stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Ms Y’s care and the associated charges. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that she tripped and suffered injuries due to the Council’s failure to make a road safe during roadworks. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her grandchild, following her daughter’s death. The courts are better placed to consider care arrangements for Miss X’s grandchild. We also could not add to the Council’s complaint responses to Miss X or achieve the outcomes she wants.

Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on trees and hedgerows when granting planning permission, failed to properly assess trees, failed to follow the petition process and failed to respond to his complaint properly. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the planning application or in its assessment of the trees. The Council did not follow the petition process fully and did not respond to all parts of the complaint. An apology, reminder to officers and a response to the complaint issues missed is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision in Section F of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. While a few visits were missed, we have not identified a significant injustice linked to fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise for the service failure of three missed visits.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal decision. The Council has acknowledged Ms X’s child received virtually no education for a period of sixteen months. It is now belatedly taking steps to resolve this. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to do repair works to the path and verge outside her house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that a footpath laid by the Council has resulted in water damage to his home. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to put in a compensation claim, and if needed, take the Council to court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan outside the statutory timescales. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to communicate with her effectively. The Council accepted its fault for delays and poor communication and the uncertainty and frustration this caused. The Council has produced a Final Education, Health and Care plan for Mrs X’s child and offered Mrs X an apology and payment totalling £1,350 for the uncertainty and frustration its fault has caused. I have ended my investigation because this is suitable action to resolve M

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. The Council followed the correct process to investigate a safeguarding alert. The Council has given thorough responses to the complainant about the outcome. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The main injustice claimed is not caused by the actions of the Council but is the actions of the care provider, which can be considered under a complaint against the provider.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing and fulfilling an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, S, causing him to miss out on his education. It has also caused the family emotional and financial distress.