LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y, received suitable education and special educational needs provision following his exclusion, causing distress and loss of earnings while she stayed home with Y. We find the Council at fault. We recommend the Council provide an apology; pay £300 for time and trouble; pay £1000 for distress and uncertainty; pay £4000 for loss of education; take action to provide Y with full time education and take action to prevent recurrence of the identified faults.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his son’s education, health and care plan. The Council delayed issuing an amended plan, missed opportunities to assess how well the plan was working, and failed to provide a coordinated approach. This created uncertainty for Y about whether the right support was in place. The Council agreed to apologise to Y, make a financial payment to recognise the impact on him, and review how it handles decisions following annual reviews in the future.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son’s financial contributions towards his care and handled her complaint poorly. She says this caused her distress and uncertainty. We have not found fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened at a mediation meeting after the Council issued a final Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child. This matter is not separable from the content of the Plan, in respect of which Mrs X had a right to approach the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it was reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to move Mr Y into an alternative care home. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the support offered to the complainant’s daughter and the decision not to carry out an

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about naming the right school to meet Mr X’s child’s special educational needs. Mr X has used his right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal about the school named by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated Mrs X when she raised safeguarding concerns about her brother, Mr Y. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain a traffic island. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: The Council’s failure to consider the needs and practicalities of the wider family before agreeing that a proposal by the Borough Council would meet Miss X’s disabled child’s needs was fault. The Council has agreed to complete a new assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply to court for deputyship for Mr Z. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action and it is open to the family to contest the application via the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a hedge obstructing a footpath. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not properly consider whether it should investigate Ms X’s late complaint and it did not consider investigating the complaint through the children’s services statutory complaints procedure. As a result Ms X missed the opportunity to have her complaint considered through the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by now investigating Ms X’s complaint starting at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has failed to assess the potential for significant harm to her children by having contact with their father and has refused to deal with her complaints. The Council has agreed to accept a complaint from Mrs X on conclusion of the family court case. It is for the court to decide if the Council needs to assess or provide a report on the current position.

Summary: The complainants, foster carers, complained that the Council failed to understand their concerns about Covid-19 when insisting that they send the foster children to school prior to the second lockdown in December 2020. The complainants also considered the Council raised unfounded allegations about them as part of its complaint investigation. We find fault in some aspects of the Council’s approach and the Council has agreed a way to remedy the injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: The commissioned care provider inappropriately implemented its emergency hospital admission procedure when Mrs X was agitated after a fall. It failed to offer her prescribed pain relief. It was poor practice on the part of the care provider to tell Mrs X’s family she would be “

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refuses to investigate his complaints about Councillor Y’s reported conversations in 2021 and actions in earlier years. There is no fault in the Council not reconsidering earlier events including between 2012 and 2018. It is not responsible for the tree preservation order which was originally of concern to Mr X. It is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate what Councillor Y said in 2021.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to remove a flow meter from an open green space close to her home. This is because Ms C has not suffered a serious injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must pay to relocate a streetlight as part of her dropped kerb application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of liability for pothole damage to his vehicle. We cannot investigate if Mr X has made a court claim regarding the incident.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for her son when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. She also says the Council failed to secure the provision in his education, health and care plan and refused her requests for a personal budget. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

Mrs P said the Council failed to implement her son’s special educational needs provision as set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said it failed to ensure his School properly fulfilled his transition plan, and its complaints response had errors and omissions. We found the Council failed to properly investigate and respond to Mrs P’s complaint. It also failed to show it had properly considered her son’s needs for a suitable designated safe space within the School’s new building. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs P and make payment for the distress its faults caused.

Summary: The Council has already upheld the complaint that there was fault in the care provided to Mr D and this fault has been remedied. There was no fault in the way the Council decided whether to invite Mr C to a meeting with Mr D and its communications regarding this.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to modify its Definitive Map to show a bridleway passing through Mr X’s property. This is because the complainant has appealed the Council’s decision to the planning inspectorate.