LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in considering his complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate a CAFCAS report or matters which have been part of legal proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his data protection complaints.

Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to consult or notify her of an application for a dropped kerb and failed to properly consider that application. There is no fault in how the Council considered the application although there were some misleading communications with Miss B. The apology the Council has already given is satisfactory remedy for that.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the annual review process and the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complainant can appeal to the SEND Tribunal and it is reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider publishing a photograph without consent because it is not an action on behalf of the Council in connection with its provision of adult social care to the individual. Therefore it is not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council social worker failing to ensure a police officer was accompanied aby an appropriate adult. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complaint and because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s decision to allow a neighbour to create a vehicular crossing was contrary to its policy and impacts on access to his property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the classification of a watercourse. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman cannot determine who owns or is responsible for the watercourse.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to matters concerning the recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) at its Household Waste and Recycling Centres (HWRCSs). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Hampshire County Council has failed to put in place all the education and special education provision in the complainant’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan since autumn term 2021. There was also delay in completing a review of the EHC Plan. These faults have caused injustice and the Council will take the action detailed to recognise and remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays following a review of an Education Health and Care Plan, and for incorrectly telling Mr X he could appeal to the SEND Tribunal before the Plan was finalised. This caused Mr X and his son avoidable distress and uncertainty about education provision. The Council was also at fault for not organising transport in time for Mr X’s son to get to college, causing inconvenience to Mr X. The Council has apologised for the delays and offered a financial remedy to Mr X. It has also agreed to offer additional financial remedies, and to review one of its procedur

Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the appropriateness of a school placement named in an education, health and care plan, because this carries a right of appeal. There was fault because the Council delayed responding to an annual review, but this did not cause an injustice. The Council is also at fault because it has not yet made a decision whether its duty under section of the Education Act 1996 has been triggered. It is speculative to say what difference this may have made, but this uncertainty causes an injustice and the Council has agreed to address this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X’s mother deprived herself of assets by placing her property into a Trust. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Council issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is currently considering the case. We also cannot investigate Mr and Ms X’s allegations of disability discrimination against a school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with Ms B and its response to her need for care and support. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative education to her daughter when she was unable to attend school for medical reasons. The Council has accepted that there was a failure to provide alternative education to the complainant’s daughter between September 2020 and March 2021. In addition, we find fault with the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for the daughter, which caused a further loss of education. The Council has accepted our findings and agreed a way to remedy the injustice caused. We have therefore co

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to make alternative educational provision for Mrs X’s child. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed considering a complaint about the actions of its children’s service under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because the Council has provided an appropriate remedy for the delays so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s request for restrictions to be placed on public rights of way. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of a school for Mrs X’s child. The matter is not separable from the recent decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Any continuing dispute about what setting is most suitable would also be for a future Tribunal to decide.

Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the handling of her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at the secondary school she wanted. This is mainly because there is no sign of fault by the appeal panel.

Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable school transport for his son, Z.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council not following relevant law and guidance when is assessed her daughter for an Education, Health and Care plan. She also said it did not follow the annual review procedure and failed to secure the provision named in the plan as well as alternative educational provision. There was fault with how the Council produced S’s Education Health and Care plan, and how it arranged the support she needed. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Ms X and reviews its procedures.

Summary: Mr B says the Council’s assessments of his needs contained inaccuracies and the Council failed to support him. We have not found inaccuracies in the assessments but the Council should have communicated its conclusions better in earlier assessments. As all the assessments came to the same conclusion, this has not affected the outcome.