LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review (AR) in July 2024, ahead of Y’s transfer year in 2025. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan by four months following the July AR. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y to recognise the distress and uncertainty the delay caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to update her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since the first annual review and its communication with her has been poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not meet statutory timescales during the annual review process and issuing of the amended final EHC Plan. It also did not take sufficient action to ensure provision was consistently secured for Mrs B’s son, as outlined in his existing EHC Plan. The Council’s communication with Mrs B was also poor. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress, frustration, uncertainty, and he

Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it responded to Miss X’s concerns about her children’s foster carer’s actions. It investigated the concerns and took appropriate action based on the information available at the time.

Summary: The complainant’s father (Mr X) said the Council failed to deliver all special educational provision included in his daughter’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and to comply with the Annual review statutory timescales. Mr X also complained about the Council’s Personal budget process and its inadequate communication. We found fault with the Council’s failure to deliver the full Education Otherwise than at School package included in Section F of Y’s plan and to include details of Y’s Personal budget in her plan. We also found fault in the delays to review Y’s Education Health and Car

Summary: The Council was not at fault. It considered Miss X’s safeguarding concerns and her request for the Council to provide accommodation for her child. The Council investigated and acted appropriately.

Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the annual review of the Education Health and Care Plan. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss X’s child, Y with all the special educational provision they were entitled to in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It was also at fault for failing to keep under review the alternative educational provision provided to Y when they were unable to attend school. Poor communication also added to Miss X’s frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the missed education, delayed appeal rights, distress and frustration caused.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council placed Mr X’s mother Mrs Y in a care home. The Council commissioned care home was at fault of the delay in changing Mrs Y’s GP. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused and to remind the care home to change GP registrations as soon as possible.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s response.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in its financial assessment process and a delay in responding to the complaint. This caused Ms X avoidable confusion and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and refunded an invoice Ms X had already paid. This Council will issue a further written apology, make a symbolic payment and deliver training for staff in the adult social care team on the charging rules and guidance.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to relocate a bus stop near to her property. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants’ application and appeal for home to school transport assistance for their children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council carried out a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker, because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council sharing inaccurate information as part of the Child Protection process as these matters are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to issue the Education Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s son, exceeding the legal time frame by 35 weeks. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of its failings on Ms X.

Summary: The Council commissioned care provider was not at fault for the way it served Mr X notice on his residential care placement and was not at fault for the way it considered his reasonable adjustments.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider if it needed to arrange alternative education for Mrs X’s child, W, when they stopped going to school. It also failed to review and amend W’s Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. The faults caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled its financial assessment for his father’s care. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and there is not enough remaining injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child. We find the Council at fault for delay, poor communication, and failure to secure suitable full-time education. This caused a loss of special educational provision and missed education for her child, and avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has refused her claim for compensation after a new road devalued her home. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: The Council failed to amend the Education, Health and Care Plan of Miss X’s child, Y, within the required timeframe. It also failed to respond to Miss X’s communications in a timely manner or at all. This caused Miss X and Y distress and uncertainty, and the delays meant Y missed half a term of college. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject an application for a vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council delayed providing an Educational Psychologist (EP) report for the reassessment and delayed drafting and finishing the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after the annual review. The Council should apologise to Ms X for her distress and make a payment to recognise the impact on Ms X’s sons (S) education.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council, in respect of her son C, had delayed in issuing a final EHC Plan following an assessment and failed to put adequate alternative provision in place. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and C and make symbolic payments to them.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that she was issued a passport in the incorrect name when she was a child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council.