LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant’s son while he has been unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide alternative provision for Ms X’s child, Y. The Council also failed to produce a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the failure to provide alternative provision but it should apologise to Ms X and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by the EHC Plan delays.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Council arranging alternative educational provision for her son after his school permanently excluded him. The Council has upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy for Miss X’s injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not fully address all parts of her complaint or provide sufficient remedy when it considered her complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council did properly follow the procedure and considered her complaints, but its remedy did not fully reflect the distress and frustration caused to her. There was also delay in the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales in reviewing Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure delivery of Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and his child and provide a symbolic payment for the avoidable frustration and distress caused and the missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s commissioned Care Provider dealt with the complainant’s request for a new support worker. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because most of the matters relate to the content of the plan and school placement, which are subject to an ongoing tribunal appeal. These matters are therefore outside our jurisdiction. Nor will we look at the Council’s communication about this, because it acknowledged this was poor and has remedied the injustice caused by its poor communication.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the care arrangements for Mr X’s child. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a mental capacity assessment undertaken as part of a Lasting Power of Attorney application. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a school admissions application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained of a contractual dispute between his care company and the Council. Mr X also complained the Council failed to safeguard, communicate and complete care reviews for service users. I have ended this investigation as the courts are best placed to consider contractual matters. The remaining part of the complaint has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide education for her son, who has special educational needs, following his exclusion from school. We upheld the complaint finding for more than four months the Council made either no education provision, or inadequate provision for Mrs C’s son. This loss of provision was an injustice. The Council proposed action it would take to remedy the complaint, set out at the end of this statement. We agreed this would provide a fair outcome to the complaint and so completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his property has been damaged by Council-owned trees. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a lack of education during a Tribunal appeal period. We will not investigate the lack of education before then as we cannot investigate education provided by a school and the time period of missing education is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about not receiving any care and support services at home for four days. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in repairing a pedestrian barrier and bollards at a road junction. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her father, Mr C that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure Mr C could read and understand financial information about his care costs, despite knowing he had a visual impairment. We found fault in the Council’s actions which meant Mr C did not understand he had to pay his care costs allowing a large debt to build up over nearly two years. This caused Mr C uncertainty and distress and Mrs B distress on receiving the invoice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mr C, make symbolic payments to them both and improve its

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about whether her child’s Education Health and Care Plan meets their needs. We cannot investigate matters which are subject to, or not separable from, a Tribunal appeal.

Summary: There was a service failure in the provision of the section 117 aftercare and some fault in the way the Council decided to communicate with Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, offer him a further meeting and has agreed to communicate via Mr B’s representative if Mr B agrees.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly complete a needs assessment and refused to provide respite for her children, F and G. Miss X also complained the Council delayed and failed to complete all the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There was fault by the Council for its delays in completing the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. This caused injustice to Miss X and the Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide her child with suitable education and special educational needs provision, and failure to complete an annual review. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

Ms M’s complaint about alternative provision for her son, B, because the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing limited term parking bays, because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council made a best interest decision for his brother, Mr Y, when it decided he did not have capacity to make decisions about his finances. The Council was at fault because it did not keep proper oversight when it referred Mr Y to a third-party financial appointee service. However, this did not cause any injustice. The Council will, however, review how it makes best interest decisions to prevent potential injustice to others who cannot manage their finances in future. The Council already apologised to Mr X for some wrong information it gave him when inves