LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council failed to complete Ms X’s son, Z’s, annual review or finalise his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The Council then delayed in consulting with Ms X’s preferred school and used an outdated version of Z’s EHC Plan to make its consultations. The Council also repeatedly failed to communicate important information to Ms X regarding her son’s education. In recognition of the uncertainty, time and trouble caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £450 and urgently re-assess Z’s EHC Plan needs, where an assessment has not recently taken place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was not given the opportunity to explain all their concerns, prior to her complaint being considered under the statutory complaints procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the removal of Mr X’s children from the UK. The matter complained of is not separable from the residence and care of children, which can only be decided by a court when the children are in the UK. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure a child received speech and language therapy. However, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for this. The Council was also at fault because it delayed consulting the therapist about the possibility of arranging catch-up sessions; and, although there was no material impact from this delay, it has agreed to apologise for the frustration it caused. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a Members Code of Conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning her and her child. The matters complained of are not separable from the contact and residence arrangements for a child. These matters have been subject to court proceedings. Mrs X also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use as only a court can vary the contact arrangements for children.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s repeated delays in its Education, Health and Care plan review process and failings to provide educational provision for his son, B. Mr X said the Council failed to communicate with him and B’s mother, Ms Y. We find fault by the Council. This has caused significant stress to Mr X and Ms Y and B did not receive a suitable education. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice.

Summary: Mr A complained professionals from a Council and Trust inappropriately interfered with his wife’s package of care when she left hospital in April 2021. We found fault in how professionals worked out what was in Mrs A’s best interests. However, on balance, this did not lead to an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about flooding outside Mrs X’s property. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council backdating a financial assessment without any prior notification the care was chargeable. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B has a disability which affects his mobility. He often returns home from work in the hours of darkness and has to walk along an unlit road. He is worried that he will fall in the dark and make his condition worse. Mr B asked the Council for longer streetlighting hours near his home and complained that it failed to properly consider his request. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with school transport. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: A parent complained that the way the Council administers school waiting lists breaches the School Admissions Code and that, as a result, her child was unfairly denied a school place. But we will not investigate this complaint as the parent had a right of appeal about the refusal of a school place and there is no sign of fault in the appeal process in her case. In addition, the School Adjudicator is best placed to consider if the Council’s admission arrangements for the school comply with statutory requirements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged after hitting a pothole which the Council failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council overcharged for her late mother’s care home fees and the costs were unauthorised. She also complained about poor communication. The Council wrongly charged for dementia care, did not explain the Deferred Payment Agreement annual uplift and did not confirm in writing Mrs Y’s care home room rate. The Council was also at fault for a delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint. This caused Miss X distress and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised, refunded the dementia and annual uplift overpayments and refunded the interest paid. This was an app

Summary: Ms Z complains on behalf of Mr B, a young person with an Education, Health and Care Plan, that the Council failed to act promptly when Mr B was without a college placement for the 2020/21 academic year. We do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council failed to provide sufficient educational provision for Mr B, including the special educational provision in his Plan, during the same academic year. The Council has already partly accepted it was at fault. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mr B and his mother, Ms Y, and make them several payments. T

Summary: Mrs X complained about the level of care provided to her mother, Mrs Y, by the care home commissioned by the Council. She also complained about delays in the safeguarding process. There was delay in the safeguarding process. The Council will apologise, pay Mrs X £100 to remedy the additional time and trouble caused, and make changes to its processes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social workers. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation, and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Mr X complained the Council failed to secure full-time education and provision in an Education, Health and Care plan for his son, Y. He also complained the Council failed to investigate when a school discriminated against Y; the School has subsequently admitted disability discrimination.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. She also complained that the Council communicated poorly with her. Miss X said this meant her son missed out on educational provision he was entitled to. She said it also caused unnecessary distress, frustration, financial loss, and cost her time and trouble. We find the Council at fault for its poor communication with Miss X. This caused her injustice. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to remedy this. We do not find the Council at fault for educational provision.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided for her son, Y’s, special educational and social care needs since 2019. The Council failed to ensure an annual review was carried out within the legal timescales, but this did not cause an injustice to Mrs X or Y. There was no fault in how the Council considered whether it needed to arrange alternative provision for Y. The Council should review its procedures to prevent similar fault in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his car was damaged after hitting a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: We stopped investigating Ms X’s complaint about a council failing to meet her daughter Y’s educational needs because it is reasonable for her to raise the issues during court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complains about delays in the Council issuing a final EHC plan for her son. She also complains the Council failed to send the annual review paperwork in time and failed to respond to her comments about inaccuracies and missing important information. We find fault with the Council for delay. We have made recommendations to the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We have not found fault in the way the Council made its decisions regarding safeguarding enquiries, but there was a delay in its completion of the assessments and there was fault in the way the Council communicated with Dr C about the powers of the attorney and the requirement to apply to the Court of Protection. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.