LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complains about the provision of care provided to her daughter Y, during various periods between 2019-2022. Mrs X’s also complains the Council did not complete a safeguarding. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. During the period, there were occasions when care was not provided by Care Provider A, resulting in Mrs X and the family having to provide care to Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: the Council failed to provide adequate support between March 2020, when Mrs M’s daughter, G, stopped attending school regularly, and September 2021. The Council offered a payment for some of the education G missed. I recommended an additional payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s daughter, Z, received the education in her April 2021 Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). It also failed to complete its August 2021 annual review of her EHC Plan, failed to make sufficient efforts to consult alternative education placements and failed to investigate Ms X’s complaints properly. These failings meant Z lost out on education she was entitled to receive for ten term-time months, her EHC Plan was out of date for one year and Ms X and Z lost their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council has already paid Ms X £2,080 in re

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council breached a licence agreement covering the impact of a highway drainage scheme on his property, refused to pay related legal costs, briefed against him in a press release, and wasted public money. Mr X can reasonably use his legal remedies at court.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it produced Mr X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) seven months late. This caused uncertainty to Mr X and his son as it was unclear what education his son would receive and Mr X lost his right to appeal a key period of provision to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £1,600 in recognition of the avoidable injustice caused and carry out several service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of risk to the complainant’s daughter and its refusal to consider his complaint about it. There is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing the complainant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Supported Employment Service. The Council has accepted fault, apologised to Mr C and changed his support worker. The Council is monitoring the service and has provided Autism communication training to its staff. It is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to follow the right process when charging her for care services. The Council accepted its fault and offered to waive Mrs X’s outstanding care charges and remind its staff of the need to provide advance information on charging. There is nothing more we could achieve for Mrs X so we discontinue this investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council completing an assessment which did not accurately identify his needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about his wife Mrs Y’s adult social care. There was a delay to Mrs Y’s return home. Mr X had to pay higher care charges. The Council has amended its charges to reflect the care that Mrs Y would have received had she returned to home earlier. This is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays issuing an Education Health and Care plan This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a different remedy than already offered and therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed assessing her care needs. This meant she was denied the opportunity to return home and became eligible for charges. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for unreasonably delaying assessing Mrs X’s care needs. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy, refund of care payments, and implement service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to answer Mr X’s questions about his daughter’s death. This is because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint the Council’s highway sign caused damage to his vehicle. It is reasonable for Mr Y to use his legal remedy at court to pursue such a claim.

Mrs X complained North Yorkshire County Council (the Council) took too long to issue her son Y’s Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan). She also complained communication with officers in the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Team was poor and the Educational Psychologist (EP) did not see Y before completing her report.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker proposed to a court. The matter complained of is not separable from the conduct of court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and failure to follow the correct process in reviewing her daughter’s EHC plan. She also complained the Council failed to secure alternative education including the provision from her daughter’s EHC plan when she was no longer able to attend school. The delays and failings in the EHC process and in issuing a final EHC plan amount to fault. As does the Council’s failure to provide alternative educational provision or ensure Y received the provision specified in her EHC plan since March 2021. These faults have caused Mrs X and Y an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate social care support. The Council delayed assessing Mr X’s needs. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration this caused. There was no evidence of fault in the way it assessed his needs or the support provided.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council improperly charged him for a carer for his late wife, Mrs X and did not provide her with suitable equipment leaving her bed bound. I have ended the investigation because the complaint relates to events which took place more than 12 months ago and we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: The Council has accepted it failed to inform Mr and Mrs X of a significant increase in the rate of Mrs X’s care prior to the new care starting. This caused Mr X distress as he fell into arrears. In recognition of this fault, the Council has agreed to reduce the amount owed to reflect the rate Mrs X would have paid, had the care been provided by her former, cheaper care provider. It also said it would train staff to ensure against the fault occurring in future. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide us with evidence that the arrears have been reduced as promised and th

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of parking enforcement on the roads near his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about the care her late mother received in Leeming Bar Grange Care Home, where the Council funded her placement from September 2019. The Council was at fault because the Care Home was not open with Ms X about her mother’s declining condition and, when advised to isolate her, the Care Home failed to do a proper risk assessment before deciding not to do so. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment for the avoidable distress caused to her by not keeping her properly informed of her mother’s condition.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing a financial assessment properly and not offering a suitable care home placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complains about the quality of care the Council has provided and the Council’s pursual of unpaid home support charges. Mr C says he should not have to pay for inadequate care. The Council has waived over £6000 of fees to reflect the poor care Mr C received and debt that it is unable to recover. The Council was at fault for failing to consider a waiver earlier. It has since adjusted Mr C’s bill and appropriately remedied the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided to assess Mrs Y’s needs to justify investigating. The Council has apologised for asking Mrs X and Mrs Y to gather quotes for support, and sent a reminder to its staff about correct processes. This is sufficient to recognise the inconvenience that caused.