LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mrs X’s reports of a loss of water supply to her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of care provided by her father’s care home and about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of a cemetery. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received provision in line with her Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council acknowledges it failed to ensure the school was delivering the provision to Y. We found fault on the Council’s part. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults to Y and Miss X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly investigate noise complaints made by her and against her in 2023. We found the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about councillor conduct. The Council followed its process and decided the complaint did not meet the threshold for further investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about damage caused to her property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. As Mrs X believes the Council is liable for the damage caused to her property, it is reasonable for her to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about penalty charge notices issued by the Council for using the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee toll bridges without paying the tolls. This is because the penalty charge notices carried a right of appeal and Mr X’s complaint about them is late. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of the final two penalty charge notices, which remain unpaid, but Mr X has appealed against them and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late mother Mrs Y, that the Council failed to tell her the outcome of a safeguarding review. Mrs X also says the Council failed to administer her mother’s medication which led to her going into hospital and damage to her property. Mrs X says this caused both her and her mother extreme distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for not confirming the outcome of the safeguarding review and for failing to ensure that Mrs Y’s medication was administered correctly. We recommend the Council apologises to Mrs X, pay her a financial remedy and

Summary: We do not uphold complaints about poor information about Ms X’s relative’s discharge from hospital or about poor information on charging. The Council explained in its social care assessment why Mr Y would not benefit from rehabilitation and so there is no fault in arranging respite care in a care home. There was a delay in responding to the complaint which was fault causing frustration. The Council will apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly communicate with him about an issue relating to his taxi meter, treated him differently by giving him only three weeks’ notice to book his taxi in for a test and has not appointed a new enforcement officer. This is because the issues have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council holding her liable for council tax on a property she no longer lives in. This is because she has right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint regarding the Council’s alleged failure to apply council tax reduction to Miss X’s council tax account. This is because this complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Miss X to bring them to us at the time.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly refused his application and appeal for help with school transport for his daughter, D, who is disabled, to the school named in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We find that the Council’s decision-making was flawed as it did not take account of relevant law and guidance. The Council should have treated D’s school as the nearest suitable school as it was the only one named in the Plan. The Council has now agreed a remedy including funding the transport, reimbursing Mr X’s expenses, and identifying and taking the same action on other similar c

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably decided it had no duty to continue housing a homeless man. This is because the man had a right of appeal to court if he wanted to dispute the Council’s decision. In addition, it is very unlikely we could achieve the outcome he is seeking in that respect.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes made to the opening hours of a library. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to undertake a capacity assessment before allowing him control of his own money. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted with residents about amendments to its draft Local Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant an injustice. Other issues either happened too long ago, have been considered in court or should be raised with other bodies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider giving incorrect medical information to the ambulance service and for losing some personal items. This is because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complains about the lack of educational and special educational provision her daughter received and about the lack of annual reviews since her daughter started having an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault for the way it reviewed the Education, Health and Care plan in July 2021 and for the level of provision it provided Ms X’s daughter from October 2020. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms Y, make a payment for the benefit of Y’s education and have a meeting with Ms X to discuss concerns she has about Y’s education.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in implementing Tree Preservation Orders on her land and failed to notify the purchaser of the property that orders were pending. So, the purchaser felled the trees causing her distress. We found no fault on the Council’s part in relation to the implementation of the orders or in relation to the information it gave the purchaser. However, it was at fault in that it delayed in responding to Ms B’s request for information. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Mr X contacted us more than 12 months after events. There is not a good reason Mr X could not have come to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault by the Council led to the flooding of property owned by Mr X. This is because Mr X has a court remedy available which we would reasonably expect him to use.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because complaints about what happens in schools are outside our jurisdiction. If the complainant wants to challenge the contents of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan, it is reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND tribunal. We will not consider complaint handling on its own.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We find the Council was at fault through delay, failing to put some of the provision in place and failing to complete a review of the EHC Plan. This resulted in some loss of provision and a lack of planning for post-16 education. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy including payments, an urgent review of the EHC Plan and a review of procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s time in care. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to do so.