LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing the complainant’s application for a vehicle crossover. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. It would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb application because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take.

Summary: Ms Y complains that failures by the Council caused her child, D, to miss important provision and limited their chances of passing exams. Ms Y says the failures meant she had to deliver provision at home, causing further distress. When she raised concerns, the Council limited Ms Y’s contact because it said she was unreasonably persistent. We find fault in some parts of the complaint which the Council has agreed to remedy with a symbolic payment of £500 and the implementation of some service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within legal timescales and did not communicate properly with her. Ms X says this impacted her financially and distressed her and Y. The Council was at fault for failing to issue an EHC Plan for Y within legal timescales and for poor communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in issuing the Education Health and Care needs assessment as any injustice this caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver extra tuition to her child, B. The Council was at fault. It failed to organise provision for B in a timely manner. The Council apologised to Mrs X and made service improvements. It has now agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, to recognise the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about further delays in the statutory children’s complaints process because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposed.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to assign a safeguarding case to a Local Authority Designated Officer he considered was not impartial or objective. Mr X also complained about actions the Local Authority Designated Officer took as part of the safeguarding investigation. The Council was not at fault in appointing the same Local Authority Designated Officer Mr X previously complained about. And there was no fault in the way the Local Authority Designated Officer oversaw the allegations management process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council because it has carried out a re-assessment of Mr Y’s social care needs and produced an updated care and support plan. It has offered to correct the assessment if Ms X provides details of inaccuracies. This is in line with our expectations.

Summary: Miss Y complained about a support service commissioned by the Council for people in its area recovering from alcohol and drug misuse and provided to Mr X, her late father. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the service provider in failing to: follow its proper procedure in response to a suspicion Mr X had been drinking alcohol: record this procedure in writing; and ensure all staff had received training about the procedure. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Miss Y for the distress caused and providing evidence from the service provider it has co

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s calculation of his brother’s contributions towards the cost of his care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce night time support. We found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to carry out a review of their care and support needs. This caused distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X. We did not find fault with the decision about the level of care.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying carrying out a financial assessment of Mr Y’s care charges. This has left Mr Y with a significant debt. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise and write off Mr Y’s debt for care charges until October 2024.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not completed the stage 2 investigation within the time period allowed in the statutory complaint’s procedure. Mr X said this distressed him. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the stage two investigation. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and complete the statutory complaint procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in completing Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. This is because the Council has provided a suitable and proportionate remedy. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide independent travel training for Mr X’s child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint. The substantive matters are better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Any injustice relating to the Council’s complaint handling is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued him a warning under its unreasonable complainants’ policy, because the warning did not cause him significant injustice. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the other issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about matters concerning her son’s education. This is because her complaint is made late and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s Education Health and Care needs assessment process. The complaint has been made to us late and it was reasonable for Mrs X to have complained sooner.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X’s need for respite as a carer and for not providing her with regular respite it accepted she needs. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the avoidable distress caused by its fault. It will also take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.