LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because Mr Y can reasonably be expected to raise the issue with the courts, who are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out an annual review of her son Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC plan) and then delayed issuing a final amended plan. The Council was at fault for the delay and for not securing all the provision in Mr Y’s plan. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr Y to acknowledge the loss of provision and a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision for Mrs X’s child. This matter is not separable from matters in respect of which Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: There is no fault in the decision to stop funding Ms X’s phone line. Council staff were not involved with assessing Ms X’s mental health in December 2021.

Summary: We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision to not to progress Miss X’s safeguarding complaint. So, we will not investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to discuss the cost implications of a care home placement. This is because the fault accepts have not caused any significant injustice to Mrs X or her mother.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to complete works to a tree overhanging her garden because there is not enough evidence of fault. Even if we found fault, investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the Council is due to reinspect the tree very shortly.

Summary: Mrs D complains about an unsuccessful appeal to the Council in relation to her son’s (Young Person X) application for free school transport. She says the appeal panel errored in its assessment of whether Young Person X was eligible for free school transport. Further, Mrs D alleges there was a serious delay in her appeal being heard. She also says the hearing was procedurally biased and fell short of the standards expected of an independent process. We found a delay by the Council in convening an independent appeal panel. However, this did not prejudice the appeal panel’s decision. The

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not installing gullies to drain surface water from the road in front of her house.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to not provide her child, Y, with school transport assistance. The Council was at fault as it did not properly consider Y’s needs and individual circumstances. We also found fault with the Council’s policy as it is not in line with legislation. The Council has agreed it will provide transport assistance to Y, apologise to Mrs X, Y and their family for the time and trouble and distress the matter caused them and will make a symbolic payment to recognise this. The Council will review its policy and provide relevant training to staff. As part

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with blocked rights of way. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the financial remedy offered by the Council does not reflect the injustice he experienced. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about the unsuccessful admissions appeal for his child, Child Y. There was no fault in the Appeal Panel’s decision. We cannot question decisions made without fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to reassess her as a foster carer when she returned after a break, having previously been a foster carer. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to ensure an adequate investigation into a complaint they made in December 2017. We upheld the complaint finding the Council at fault for a series of delays which prevented the complaint progressing through the statutory complaint procedure for complaints about children’s services. The Council accepted our findings and agreed action, set out at the end of this statement, to remedy the resulting injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed addressing a matter under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to deal with Subject Access Request. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the most appropriate authority for his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in 2019 and its subsequent handling of Mrs X’s complaint. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or the outcome Mrs X wants. She has or had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use to pursue a compensation claim. There is not enough evidence of fault in the key matter or the way the Council handled the complaint to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the information recorded by his child’s school and the way his Subject Access Requests were dealt with. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council. We cannot consider complaints about schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the placement of Mrs Y’s room in a care home. We could not come to sound conclusions about the care provider’s actions and whether Mrs Y experienced injustice due to the placement of her room. We could not achieve a meaningful remedy for Mr X.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the end of life care and support provided to her late mother, Mrs C, by the Council and the Trust after her mother left hospital in late 2020. We found fault by the Council as it did not review Mrs C’s care and support plan when her needs changed. Because of this the care Mrs C received did not always meet expected standards. The Trust did not complete a formal assessment or liaise with Mrs C’s doctor when it decided she was not eligible for fast track healthcare funding. This left Mrs B with uncertainty about her mother’s entitlement to healthcare funding. The

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the complainant. This is because the Council will send another complaint response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about the welfare of his son. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his concerns about the care provided to the late Mr Y. He says the Council placed Mr Y inappropriately and Mr Y was neglected because the Care Provider could not meet his needs. We find no fault in the way the Council placed Mr Y, but we found fault in the way it dealt with Mr Y’s concerns, a safeguarding enquiry, and in the care he received. The Council has agreed to apologise, waive some of Mr Y’s care fees and review its processes to avoid similar problems in future.