LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs B complained about a debt relating to reablement care which she says the Council promised her would be provided for free. The Council has decided to cancel the debt Mrs B complained about. As this was the main outcome Mrs B was seeking and as nothing can be gained from further investigation of the complaint, we will discontinue the investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled its safeguarding investigation after an assault on his late mother in a care home. He says he and his family suffered significant distress, made worse by the Council’s actions and lack of sensitivity. We found no fault in the way the Council conducted its investigation but found fault in its communication with Mr X. We recommended it apologise to Mr X, pay him £100 for distress and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the use of false information. This is because any injustice caused to the complainant by the Council’s actions is insufficient to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the consideration of Mr B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. It has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has declined to implement a recommendation made by the Review Panel considering a complaint against children’s services. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Y’s education. The Tribunal is considering what Y should receive, we cannot investigate a school’s actions and it is not right to investigate separable matters until the Tribunal has ended.

Summary: the Council failed to adequately inform Mr B about its investigation of his concerns. This caused him uncertainty as he could not be sure that these issues were thoroughly addressed under the correct procedure and had to complain to this office in order to establish this. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £200 to Mr B to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the disposal of items belonging to the complainant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision by the Council not to investigate the work of a building sub-contractor who worked at Ms X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council has accepted that it was at fault in the way it managed the complainant’s son’s special educational needs, resulting in him being without suitable education for a prolonged period. We have recommended a way to remedy this injustice and for the avoidable distress caused to his family. The Council has accepted the recommendations and therefore we are closing the complaint.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council misled her into thinking it would name her preferred school placement when issuing her daughter’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, that it delayed in implementing a Tribunal Order and delayed in holding an annual review in 2020. We find fault in some aspects of this complaint. The Council has accepted the recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. We are therefore closing the complaint.

this complaint about the Council’s decision not to implement additional highway markings requested by Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his son’s Education, Health and Care plan. Mr X said his son missed out on education and social/emotional opportunities. He said it caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, and cost him time and trouble. We cannot investigate this complaint because it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: there was fault by Hampshire County Council in the form of delay in completing an assessment of Ms B’s child’s special educational needs and in making adequate educational and special educational needs provision for a prolonged period. This caused injustice to Ms B and her daughter. The Council will take the action recommended to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disruption during roadworks because it is late with no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for kitchen adaptations. There were some initial faults which led to a delay in producing recommendations to the Borough Council for a disabled facilities grant. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £150 to acknowledge the frustration this caused. There was no fault in the recommendations made or its decision to agree the schedule of works prepared by the Borough Council.

Summary: Miss X complains about the management of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan in a transition year. We find fault with the Council for consultation delays, failing to meet a statutory deadline and poor communication. The Council will apologise, make additional payments to Miss X and her son for distress, time and trouble and implement service improvements set out in this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an accident on the public highway. This is because we cannot decide if the Council was negligent and responsible for the accident. Only insurers or the courts can do this.

stop payments, and that it has not reviewed Mr B’s needs. The Council is at fault because it did not try to contact Mr B’s representatives as it should have done, it stopped payments without ensuring Mr B’s care needs were still met and has delayed reviewing Mr B’s needs. Mr B and his family have had to provide care and support and have suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr B £250 for distress, pay Mrs A £4000 for distress to herself and Mr B’s family, complete Mr B’s review/care plan, provide guidance to staff and conduct an audit of service users.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council scheme to promote the installation of solar panels. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the handling of his mother, Mrs B’s, discharge from hospital. This is because we are not satisfied Mrs B has fully consented to Mr A complaining to us on her behalf. We therefore do not consider Mr A suitable to bring this complaint to us.

Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying consideration of Miss B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. The Council has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Miss B.

Summary: The complainants alleged that the Council delayed in completing annual reviews of their daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and failed to deal properly with their request for a reassessment. We find fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy the resulting injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: The Council failed to properly monitor Ms X’s son’s, Z’s, alternative education package while he was educated outside of school. This caused frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for a financial remedy and service improvements. The Council was not at fault for the length of time it took to find Z a new school place.