LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate steps to ensure his landlord complied with an improvement notice regarding his heat pump system in his private rented home. The Council was not at fault for revoking the improvement notice after the landlord replaced the heat pump. Subsequent inspections did not identify any hazards which would justify a further notice. The ongoing issues are now a matter between Mr X and his landlord.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to discharge its legal duties towards him. We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint. There was no requirement for the Council to complete safeguarding enquiries and so there was no fault saying it would not progress a safeguarding investigation. However, a social care assessment should have been completed when Mr X said he was struggling with daily activities because of pain. The complaint response did not identify this and so was inadequate. Mr X suffered avoidable distress. The Council will issue an apology, make a symbolic payment and complete the socia

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard him from harm when he was a child. This is because,

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because another body is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication from the Council. This is because this alone has not caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in naming a school in the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and the Council’s decision not to obtain a Speech and Language assessment. This is because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax exemption. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the NHS keeps up to date records. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning application. There is no personal injustice because the Council have not yet decided, and an investigation could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. In any case, even if it is approved by the Council, we would not investigate, because there is no significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a vehicle access. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no worthwhile outcome in us investigating.

Summary: Mr X complained about how he has been treated by the Council. He said: staff are discriminating against him because of his homelessness and disabilities; the Council has not supported him properly because he does not have access to the services; the Council asked him to sign a tenancy agreement without having the chance to see the property and said the Council’s communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to some of Mr X’s emails. This caused him significant distress. To remedy this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We have discontinued the investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the placement of her son C. This is because the matters Mrs X raises are the same as the grounds she put forward to the courts when applying to judicially review the Council. We have no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint after proceedings about the same matter have commenced.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make amendments to a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed about the same matter to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Service. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided through Child in Need arrangements. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child with a suitable education and support for their special needs when they were unable to attend school. We found the Council to be at fault. There was also fault with the Council’s communication and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and confirm action it has taken to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council has handled his involvement with its services. Further investigation would not add to the Council’s response or lead to a different result.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the delay in receiving remedies the Council agreed to pay to her and her son, S, in August 2021. The Council was at fault. It did not realise it had not completed the actions it committed to in August 2021 until Mrs X made her complaint. It also did not have a personal budget procedure in place which delayed the payments. This caused Mrs X and S injustice and at the end of this decision statement we recommend what actions the Council should take to put things right.

Summary: There was no fault the Council did not make alternative education provision available when Mrs X’s daughter first stopped going to school. The evidence shows the school were initially successful in returning her to school gradually. However, when this arrangement broke down and Mrs X’s daughter stopped attending, there was fault the Council did not consider and decide whether it owed a duty to make alternative education provision available. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because she now has uncertainty about whether her daughter missed out on education.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to provide adequate and timely alternative education provision for her Child, Child Y, when they were unable to attend school from January to July 2023. The Council was at fault for not acting sooner when Mrs X alerted it in early November 2022 of Child Y’s significantly decreased school attendance. The Council delayed responding to Mrs X’s request for and then completion of an early Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review for Child Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Child Y for the injustice caused by

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to respond to her request for an Education, Health and Care Needs reassessment for her son, and failed to respond to her complaint. We find fault with the Council for failing to properly respond to her request and complaint, and for delay in dealing with her complaint. We have agreed symbolic payments for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to seek his consent before it spoke with his children following a safeguarding referral to its children’s services department. This is because the Council upheld the complaint and remedied the injustice caused by apologising. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a social worker lied about obtaining his consent because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she suffered injuries due to the Council’s failure to maintain a pavement. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.