LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Mr X’s application for its local welfare scheme. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s installation of a zebra crossing near a property he purchased. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not completing recommendations it made in relation to care it provided to her late mother. This is because the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We find the Council at fault for delays in the education, health and care plan review process, delays implementing alternative educational provision, poor complaint handling, and poor communication. This caused Miss X distress and frustration, and denied her appeal right. The Council will apologise and make a payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education to her child or its failure to secure the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms Y’s adult social care and associated charges. We already considered the substantive matter in 2023 and explained we could not investigate matters the courts have already decided. Other parts of the complaint are for the Information Commissioner or are matters that have not yet been considered via the Council’s internal complaints process.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about Mrs X’s care and treatment in hospital, a safeguarding alert the hospital made to the Council, and an authorisation to deprive Mrs X of her liberty in hospital. We cannot investigate this complaint because the matters Mr and Mrs X complain about are not administrative functions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint about her relative being subjected to coercive behaviour. This is because, while the Council did not tell Miss X it would be visiting her relative, any fault has not caused injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a disabled parking bay. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his vehicle was damaged by a pothole which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X’s complaints about the actions of the Council’s children’s services and a court report because they relate to matters being considered by a court. We will not investigate the earlier matters because they relate too closely to the later court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disrepairs to his chalet and the behaviour of a Council officer. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because it is made late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed an adoption assessment. We could not add to the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since September 2023. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms X’s child from 22 November 2023 to 3 July 2024. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £3,600 for her child’s missed education. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £150 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience the Council’s fault put her to. The Council agreed to provide guidance and training to staff about the importance of alerting the relevant department if a child’s is absent from school f

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing the review of an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a remedy for the injustice this caused. It is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal about other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the care provider has taken in response to the complaint. It has accepted fault, apologised, and will learn lessons to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support the Council arranged for Mr X. This is because we could not add to investigation the Council has already carried out, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X and his mother want.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it failing to follow statutory timescales for issuing his son’s final Education, Health and Care plan. It missed the timescale by 13 weeks. There were communication failures with Mr Y and a failure to properly deal with his complaint according to its complaints procedure. This caused avoidable distress as his son missed provision, and Mr Y suffered frustration, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. The Council agreed to send him a written apology for the failings, pay £700 for lost provision, £500 for avoidable distress, and act to

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide speech and language therapy for her son, or respite breaks for her. We uphold both parts of Mrs B’s complaint. The Council had not ensured adequate records were kept of the reasons for the therapy delay. And it delayed providing respite, which it had assessed Mrs B as needing. The faults caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to our recommendations: for symbolic payments to Mrs B and that it reminds its officers of the importance of record keeping.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or are not separable from those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a child’s education provision. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome and because some matters are raised late.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. We could not add to the complaint responses the Council has already sent to Miss X. The law also prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings.

Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to not treat Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan review as a key-stage phase transfer review. She also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. She says the lack of a review frustrated her appeal rights, which has consequently left her son without provision and has caused stress.

Summary: Miss X complains about the annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault. The Council delayed finalising the Plan after the annual review and there were delays in the Council’s complaints process. It is unlikely that Y would have changed schools earlier if the fault had not occurred but the delays led to distress and uncertainty for Miss X. The Council apologised and revised procedures before the complaint was considered by the Ombudsman, but a payment in addition to this remedies the injustice.