LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the cost of his care and the Council’s failure to share information with the Department of Work and Pensions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and the Council has exercised discretion to waive the care costs.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the standard of care provided to her late mother by Company Y, a Council commissioned care provider. Company Y has investigated Miss X’s concerns, upheld parts of her complaint, apologised and taken action to improve. We could not add to Company Y’s response or make a different finding of the kind Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged neglect in a care home. The local Safeguarding Adults Board is completing a Safeguarding Adults Review into the care provider, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further.

Summary: Ms B complains about the way the care home decided to admit Miss C to the care home and then changed its mind soon after. We have found fault and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay a small financial remedy.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which Mr X says is of poor quality and a breach of the contract he signed with it. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts for his claims about financial loss.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by the faults accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed in its duty to provide an appropriate school place for the complainant’s son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of a Care Provider because he says his late mother’s rings went missing in one of its nursing homes. He also said the Council did not do enough to investigate the matter. We did not find fault by the Council. The Care Provider failed to follow its procedures as it did not ensure a record of belongings form was signed by its staff and Mr B’s mother. This is likely to leave Mr B with uncertainty about the whereabouts of his mother’s rings. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations and will apologise to Mr B and improve its procedures to ensure

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to prevent the removal of protected trees in 2013. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: There was no fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s report of his neighbour’s alleged breach of planning control. The Council investigated and made a professional judgement. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove its hedge from land across the road from her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that a tree fell on her home due to the Council’s failure to maintain it. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to pursue her compensation claim at court. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Miss B’s complaint that the Council has refused to cut back another tree which she considers could fall on her home.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council moving a streetlight near his property.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained on behalf of their relative, Mr Y, about poor service and poor care whilst Mr Y lived in a Council-commissioned care home. They say poor care led to Mr Y being admitted to hospital where he later died. The Council was at fault. There was poor record keeping and poor communication from both the Council and the care provider which caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty and distress. However, the evidence does not show Mr Y received poor care. The Council has already apologised to Mr and Mrs X, written off some advanced care charges and acted to improve its service. It w

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has sent a court an assessment saying he should not care for his children and that it did not support him caring for them in a court case many years ago. We cannot lawfully investigate what happens as part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons it could not have been brought to us sooner. Even if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could now add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s emergency care call service. We could not add to the investigation that has already taken place, and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr Y and his family and pay them £250 to recognise the distress the incident caused them. We are satisfied with this, along with action the service has already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about various matters arising from the Council’s decision to serve the complainant with a Noise Abatement Order. This is because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to use his legal right to appeal against the serving of the Notice in the court and raise these matters as part of his defence.

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

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council taking action for noise nuisance from 2020. It was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to resite a street light outside his home. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Ms Y being discharged home without appropriate support because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council being biased in favour of Mr X’s former partner in a dispute about the custody of children. The matters complained of are not separable form matters where Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she tripped over a damaged paving stone which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the Council’s decision not to discharge Mrs H into a care home in August 2019. This is because it is late and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to the desired outcome.