LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the annual Education Health and Care Plan review process. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice by providing a financial remedy. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son Y’s school with enough funding to secure the special educational provision in his Education Health and Care Plan, did not meet the statutory timescales when it reviewed the plan, and had poor communication when she raised concerns. She said this meant Y missed a lot of education and caused significant stress and anxiety. We find the Council failed to secure Y’s special educational provision, missed a statutory deadline in the review process and had a poor standard of communication. This caused injustice in the form of missed educa

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s son’s entitlement to school transport. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Ms X complained about delays in processing her application for a house extension. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault but it failed to complete agreed recommendations without delay causing Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and ensure it has procedures in place to monitor and carry out recommendations made as part of the statutory complaints process in a timely manner.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan and did not respond to her complaint. We have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of nearly a year by not finalising her son’s plan and took ten months to respond to her complaint. This meant her son missed out on some support he needed. Miss X herself also experienced inconvenience and distress due to the delays in handling her complaint. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to provide a second care worker during a morning call to Ms X. Investigation would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s delay in making transport arrangements available for her child, D, to attend the school named in their Education Health and Care plan. When Mrs Y complained to the Council, it did not respond for over seven months. The Council has already paid £500 in recognition of Mrs Y’s distress and has agreed to make a further payment of £200 in recognition of the anxiety caused to D. The Council will also publish information about how it processes school transport mileage allowance claims.

Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan for K, and to review the Plan. It also has acknowledged that it did not communicate with K’s mother, Ms X properly, or always deal with her complaints in good time. I have found that the Council also failed to properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when K could not go to school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and to K, and make a further symbolic payment in recognition of the impact on them of the further fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about evidence collected and presented to a Tribunal. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the evidence presented to a Tribunal. We cannot investigate matters which formed part of a Tribunal. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay reviewing his child’s Educational Health and Care Plan. The remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council damaging her fence. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: The Council failed to issue a decision following an annual review meeting and delayed issuing a decision following a later annual review meeting. This delayed Ms X’s appeal right to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal and caused her distress. The Council also delayed providing increased funding to the School and delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint. I have recommended a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an accident for which Ms Y is claiming compensation for personal injury. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms Y to take the matter to court.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it poorly communicated with Mrs X following a review of her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed issuing a final EHC Plan. It failed to provide Y with alternative provision when they could not attend school, and it delayed responding to Mrs X’s request for a reassessment of Y’s needs. The Council also failed to complete a review of Y’s EHC Plan in preparation of Y’s school phase transfer year, and it delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaints. It caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right to appeal. Y

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter following an annual review. Mrs X also complained the final plan contained inaccuracies and was missing information. We have ended our investigation because the Council has now upheld Mrs X’s complaint and offered a suitable remedy. Further investigation by us would not add anything significant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint her son’s Independent Living Placement restricted her access. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a dropped kerb application. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed finalising its section 47 assessment and she had to constantly chase for updates. She also complained about the information the Council included in the assessment. Finally, she complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing the assessment, its communication with Miss X and its complaints handling. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty, and she lost the opportunity to access support sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her and write to

Summary: Miss X complained about significant delays in extending her property under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Miss X initially asked for a DFG in 2020 but five years later the works are still not complete. We found there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s children’s needs or in its recommendation for a two bedroom extension.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take safeguarding action in response to the complainant’s concerns about her son’s welfare. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing Mrs X’s child, Z’s, amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to secure elements of the provision in the Plan between May 2024 and April 2025. This meant Z missed two and a half terms of provision and caused Mrs X uncertainty and time and trouble as she chased the Council to secure the provision in Z’s Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review how it satisfies itself it has secured the provision in EHC Plans.

Summary: The Council failed to secure elements of the provision in Mrs X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2024 and April 2025. This meant Y missed out on a term and a half of provision and caused Mrs X uncertainty and time and trouble as she chased the Council to secure the provision in Y’s Plan. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review how it satisfies itself it has secured the provision in EHC Plans.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s education. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the claimed injustice, and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council failing to ensure her son Z received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to show it considered whether alternative provision was needed and whether provision under his plan was being provided when circumstances changed. It also delayed holding an annual review of his plan. The Council agreed to send her an apology, £3,600 for lost educational provision, £200 for the delay, and review its procedures to ensure the failures found cannot be repeated on future cases.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s record of information at a multi-agency meeting. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation and other bodies are better placed to investigate Mr X’s complaints.