LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to award a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay following the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome and so our further involvement is not warranted.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council refused to provide free home to school transport for his child, which he said was contrary to its policy. We found fault in how the Council described its policy, which did not explain how it measured home to school distance in all cases. It agreed to our recommendation to amend this. However, we did not consider this fault caused Mr B injustice. This is because he knew before choosing his child’s secondary school, which school the Council considered the nearest qualifying school for home to school transport purposes.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to maintain her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, failed to issue an EHC Plan which met Y’s needs, failed to ensure provision was made in line with Y’s Plan and failed to provide Y with suitable education. The Council was at fault for the delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan, delay in arranging provision after an emergency review in line with their EHC Plan and not reimbursing Miss X for an online tuition payment or considering reimbursing her for additional resources she bought Y. This caused Miss X frustration, uncertainty and time a

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a public event because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a path. This complaint is outside our jurisdiction, as Mrs X can ask the court to decide what actions the Council should take.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council’s commissioned care provider did not provide good care and treatment for her husband. The Council’s safeguarding investigation showed the care home had implemented all necessary measures to manage Mr X’s health. The Council has now offered to waive the contribution as there was some poor communication by the care provider which caused distress to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about budget management as any injustice arising from this impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area and so is not within our remit.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a wayleave agreement. This is because it is about a commercial transaction relating to industrial or business premises on land the Council owns and leases to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding for an adult social care respite stay in a residential care home. The complaint is a late complaint as the complainant knew about the matters two years ago. There are no good reasons the complaint could not have been made to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating child safeguarding concerns in a matter concerning Mr X. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her care and support plan, took too long to put in place a direct payment and delayed responding to her complaint. We upheld the complaint. The review of Ms X’s care and support plan was already overdue when she requested it and the Council did not act promptly to complete the review or put in place the direct payment. The Council also took too long to respond to the complaint and failed to recognise it was at fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment and take action to minimise the chance of recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of noise nuisance complaints from Ms X’s business. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the escalation of a penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to ask the court to consider his case.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to find education for

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax court costs because the matter has been considered in court and the complainant could have challenged the costs in court. In addition, the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending demand notices for a debt related to his late father’s care charges. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about being charged for care which she believes should have been free as she was told it was reablement care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has used his right to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and the Council’s bailiffs have provided a suitable remedy for its delay in considering his vulnerability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, and the Council’s decision about a deprivation of asset. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making process or reach a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider differing ground levels in granting planning permission for development near his home. We found no fault in how the Council both reached its decision to grant planning permission and investigated Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control on the development site.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about temporary road closures during a half-marathon. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference, where the complainants say inaccurate information was provided by the police. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the police and there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of the conference.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to consider it.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to store his possessions when he was evicted and made homeless. There is evidence the Council offered to provide appropriate storage for Mr X’s possessions and it funded transportation of numerous items to storage facilities Mr X chose to arrange. We did not find the Council was at fault.