LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge for new bins and garden waste collections.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the council managed the care and treatment of Mr X’s late relative, Mrs Y. This is because we cannot achieve anything for Mrs Y now and the injustice for Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the provision in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or provide Y with a suitable alternative education. Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council did not consider her wishes when care planning for her children. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the statutory complaint’s procedure. Therefore it is not proportionate for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Council’s refusal to change the social worker. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council assessed her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Tribunal if she disagreed with the content of the Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. Further, there is a remedy available through the courts and insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. Based on current evidence, we have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of seven months. This likely meant her son missed out on some support that he needed. Mrs X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council will now take action to address their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council underpaid Mr Y’s education bursary by £222. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly assessed his mother’s disability related expenditure when reviewing her financial assessment linked to care costs. We found fault because the Council applied a blanket approach to the disability related costs it would write off which it should not have done. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his mother, review her financial assessment, update its charging policy and guidance and share this with relevant staff.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange a suitable school placement or alternative educational provision for her child. These matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about highway maintenance and road closures near her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Agency provided care to Mrs D and in its record keeping. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding Mr X being denied information from the Council about his foster career ending as the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider this matter. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in his foster career ending and its refusal to re-register him as a foster carer is made late.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council produced backdated billing for her sister’s care charges because it states she overpaid her carers. Mrs X also complained the Council started to charge client contributions towards her sister’s care. And, Mrs X complained about the handling of her complaint. We found fault with the Council applying top-up fees for Mrs X’s sisters care. We also found fault with the Council delaying in billing Mrs X’s sister for her client contributions. During our investigation, the Council accepted fault for charging top-up fees and agreed to remove these. The Council has

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning enforcement outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

Miss X complained the Council excessively and disproportionately intervened after a traumatic premature birth. She said the Council wrongly considered care proceedings, put both of her children on child protection plans, and communicated poorly. Miss X said the Council’s actions scarred and traumatised her, and caused significant distress. She said the experience significantly impacted her mental health. Miss X said she felt shamed, bullied and misjudged. She said she was treated like a danger to her children during one of the most frightening, exhausting and vulnerable times of her life. Miss

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint arising from an insurance claim about damage caused to the complainant’s property. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to go to court if she remains unhappy with the outcome of her claim against the Council’s insurer.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in replacing her bin. This is because the Council apologised for the delay and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed delivering a replacement garden waste bin and refused to refund part of its service charge. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council allowing the pavement to become overcome with grass and debris. This is because the law provides an alternative remedy for the issue which it would be reasonable for Mr X to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to consider his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.