LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment in respect of his son C. He also complained that the Council had failed to provide suitable and accessible full-time education for C. We found there was delay in completing the assessment process due to a delay in receiving the Educational Psychology advice. We did not find fault with its actions in respect of alternative provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and C and make a symbolic payment of £450.

Summary: The Council put in place suitable alternative educational provision for Mr X’s child, Y when they stopped attending school, so it was not at fault. The Council was at fault for failing to issue Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales and for failing to provide Y with some of the specialist provision set out in the Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of Y’s missed education.

Summary: We will not investigate this whistle-blowing complaint about matters principally involving staff safety at temporary accommodation contracted by the Council. We are not a responsible body for whistle-blowing complaints and other bodies are better placed than us to deal with this matter.

Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to provide Mrs X’s child’s full Education, Health and Care Plan provision and suitable education from 8 November 2024 to the end of the academic year. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £300 for the frustration, distress and uncertainty caused to her and £2,500 for her child’s missed educational provision.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to traffic management. This is because it is not in our jurisdiction as Mr X has started court action.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. We could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s own complaint investigation, which has already upheld the complaint in full. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is compensation for a loss of earnings and for other issues relating to his health. This is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s historic complaint about the Council’s actions between 1993-1997 when she was a child in its care. This is because we cannot carry out a full, fair and effective investigation into the Council’s actions now due to the very significant passage of time since the events complained about.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council did not act when her child, who I will call C, stopped attending school in July 2023. Although the Council allocated a secondary school from September 2023, Mrs Y said it was unsuitable for C. Mrs Y asked for a bespoke package of education to be delivered outside of school. We find fault in the parts of the complaint within our jurisdiction because the Council did not consider whether C needed alternative provision in November 2023 when the school confirmed C was not attending. There is also fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint. The Council will

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a data breach at the complainant’s child’s school. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools and about how councils investigate these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with requests for information. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s claim for damage to his car, which he says results from hitting a pothole in the road. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim through the courts.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council sent contradictory letters which caused confusion on whether the Council would fund a care home placement. This meant the transition from Council funded to self-funded care was not well managed and the complainants were not given the option of the Council managing the care, with the complainants paying the full cost. Reviewing the procedures to ensure they comply with the Care Act 2014 and paying the care home fees owed once the upper capital threshold would have been reached remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about charging for adult social care because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly communicate with her about her mother’s care home fees, delayed issuing an invoice and unreasonably reported her to the Office of the Public Guardian. We find no fault in the way the Council told Mrs B about the amount she would need to pay, or its decision to report its concerns to the Office of the Public Guardian. But it delayed issuing an invoice, which caused Mrs B unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s children services following a child protection intervention. We upheld the complaint. While we found the Council had evidence that justified placing Ms B’s children on child protection plans, there were later faults in its case management. Some of these it had previously recognised. But our investigation found specific flaws around the circumstances where Ms B’s son entered foster care for a time. We considered this caused injustice, as distress. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for damage to Mr X’s motor vehicle. This is because Mr X has an alternative legal remedy through the courts and because we cannot decide liability, or direct the Council to accept liability, it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use his legal remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mrs X’s car from hitting a pothole in the road. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue her claim for repair costs through the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council provided inaccurate information during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide his daughter with sufficient alternative provision while she was unable to attend school. The Council is at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education from October 2023 to July 2024. The Council has also failed to record its decision making. This fault meant Mr X’s daughter received limited education between October 2023 and July 2024. This caused Mr X and his daughter significant distress, frustration and has negatively impacted her educational development. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and his

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council supported her son while he was in local authority care. Based on current evidence, we have found that the Council was not at fault. It respected her wishes and made decisions about Y’s care which do not appear unreasonable. The Council was, however, at fault for keeping incomplete safeguarding records. It was also at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint. Neither of these things caused her an injustice, but the Council should nonetheless take steps to improve its complaint handling in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge for care it arranged for Mr X’s late mother in 2023. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has accepted there were delays connected with a shortage of educational psychologists. It has now agreed to suitable remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council incurred delays in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr X and in finding him suitable accommodation. They also complained the Council delayed pursuing a possible placement at a preferred setting. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and frustration. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X and Ms Y.