LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We upheld a complaint that the Council delayed in issuing Mrs C’s daughter with an updated Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found delay in the Council identifying suitable education provision for her daughter. Mrs C suffered an injustice because of the resulting distress and her daughter suffered an injustice because of the loss of education provision. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to decline to reimburse Ms X for taxi journeys out of its school transport budget. It was entitled to ask Ms X to first provide evidence about the taxi service that was used.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s care review meeting and report, and it not replying to her complaint. An investigation by us would not reach a different outcome. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s application for free school meal vouchers for her child. This is because we would not achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his daughter Miss Y, about the contents of a recent Council care and support plan. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the travel costs of Ms X’s child because there is no worthwhile outcome that we can achieve by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice as we could not achieve more than what the Council is now doing.

Summary: The Council delayed arranging alternative education when a pupil was too anxious to return to school and delayed securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse tuition costs, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.

Summary: The Council failed to carry out a new mental capacity assessment when it changed its view on Mr Y’s capacity to decide on his care needs. This delayed Mr Y’s planned move to residential care causing Mr Y’s daughter, Miss X, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and review its processes.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an alleged data breach. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to prune a tree close to her home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s placement of street furniture. The injustice claimed by Mrs X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. In any case, we cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council stopped her direct payments and significantly reduced her care support. We did not find fault in the way the Council carried out Mrs X’s care and support review process and stopped her direct payments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation concerning his brother, Mr Y and his placement at a care home. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns with the Court of Protection.

We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s offer of education to his son. This is because, since May 2025, it is a direct consequence of the Council’s decision to not name a school in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Tribunal. Before May, the Council has already offered a suitable remedy, so further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged late request for payment of care fees by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs X to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: There was fault in the care provided to Mrs D, particularly in relation to falls prevention, record keeping and keeping Mrs D safe from other residents. This has caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise, reduce the invoice and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act when Mr Z’s independent school did not safeguard him or provide a suitable education, including the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s conduct during court proceedings because the law says we cannot investigate what happened in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family, during family court proceedings. The law

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for Mr X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Mr X can submit a late appeal to the Tribunal if he thinks the Council did not properly advise him of his appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns and meets care and support needs. The Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the Council’s decisions where there is no fault in how they were made. If the complainant disagrees with what is in the best interests of the person receiving care they can ask the Court of Protection to decide.

Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the conduct of Court care proceedings. We cannot achieve the aim X wishes of the return of their child to their care. And we will not investigate the Council’s decision to change a looked after child’s school without X’s consent as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include notional capital in Mrs Y’s financial assessment for care. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision.

Summary: We found fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council failing to provide her son with a suitably qualified and trained tutor, experienced in working with young people with autism and anxiety. It failed to show it considered whether the tutor was appropriately trained. Nor did it show steps it took to find an alternative tutor when alerted to the tutor’s shortcomings. The Council agreed to send her an apology for the failings found and remind relevant officers of the need to check whether tutors meet specified criteria and to consider whether it, or the provider, could act to resolve