LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict the complainants contact under its unreasonable behaviour policy. This is because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delay, which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It should also review its action plan to ensure Education, Health and Care Plan writing is conducted in line with the timescales set out in statutory guidance.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council was involved in a decision by the school attended by her child Y to stop offering specific educational provision, did not provide Y with suitable alternative education when she could not attend school, failed to meet timescales in an education, health and care needs assessment process and had poor standards of communication. We find the Council at fault for the way it decided if it should offer alternative education, and for missing statutory timescales in the assessment process. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Y of distress, uncertainty and frustration

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with the care of his daughter, Ms Y. The Council was at fault for completing a flawed stage two investigation, delaying in completing the complaint procedure, poor communication and failing to explain its reasons for rejecting the panel’s findings. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and fully explain its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to transfer an Education Health and Care Plan to a different Local Authority. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision it was no longer responsible for the complainant’s aftercare needs after she moved out of its area and was sectioned in a different council’s area. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding the school setting named in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal against this decision.

Summary: There was a delay in offering Mr B an assessment by an occupational therapist, to decide whether Mr B was eligible for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) but the Council has already remedied this. The Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant when it made its decision and this was fault. The Council has agreed to review its decision and provide a written response to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a concessionary bus pass for disabled people. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delivery of occupational therapy. The Council have offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was no fault by the Council in how it secured the provision for Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of its unreasonable behaviour policy to restrict contact with Ms X because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided not to make an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order permanent. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange an assessment prior to the review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council exercised its child protection duties. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, for some parts of the complaint other bodies are better placed to consider them, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that Mrs X wants.

Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son with the speech and language therapy in his Education, Health and Care Plan since October 2024. We have ended our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint because she used her right to appeal to the Tribunal. Her complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council continues to manage her money even though she has now paid off her debts. We have ended our investigation into this complaint because the Council has explained why it remains her appointee, there is no evidence of fault in its actions or of significant injustice to Miss X, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Ms X’s complaint about the decision not to make an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about arranging alternative provision or school transport for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not issue Mrs X’s child, Y’s, decision letter or Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales after Y’s late January 2025 annual review. It also communicated poorly with Mrs X. The symbolic payment the Council has already offered to Mrs X for the delays and associated distress is in line with our guidance on remedies. The Council will pay Mrs X the £500 symbolic payment it previously offered to acknowledge Mrs X’s distress, frustration and uncertainty and also issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan. The Council has already put in pla

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment for adult social care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about communication delays.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with payments for the care of her granddaughter, Y. The Council was at fault for failing to recognise its duty to accommodate Y and make payments to Mr and Mrs X. This caused Mr and Mrs X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate payments, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs X’s application for free home-to-school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council supported Mrs X with direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation into concerns she raised against a care provider looking after her relative, Mrs E and counter-concerns raised by the Care Provider. We found some fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs C about the allegations, some delay in requesting evidence and reaching a conclusion and some confusion on the final complaint response. This caused Mrs C some distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her £200.