LGO Individual Decisions

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.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessments of his daughter’s care needs, its delays, and not properly considering her needs for additional support. We found the Council at fault for the time taken to complete the assessments and its contact with Mr X about proposed changes to a care plan. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to ensure their son received the provision in his education, health and care plan, failed to put in place education when their son stopped attending school and delayed responding to their complaint. There is evidence Mr and Mrs B’s son did not receive all the one-to-one provision in his education, health and care plan, the Council failed to act appropriately when Mr and Mrs B’s son stopped attending school and the Council delayed responding to the complaint. That means Mr and Mrs B’s son missed out on education and special educational needs p

Summary: Mr X complained the Council changed the expenses it allowed under direct payments and its communication with him about this was poor. We upheld the complaint because communication was not in line with our expected standards. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and issue Mr X with a comprehensive statement about the expenses the Council allows for Mr Y’s direct payment based on his current care and support plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s provision of education, and handling of the education, health and care process for her two children which caused missed education and significant distress. We find the Council at fault for its failure to provide suitable alternative education, meet statutory deadlines, and for poor communication and complaint handling, which caused injustice. We find the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for the injustice. We have decided to end our investigation into other areas of the complaint because they are late or have been appealed to the Tribun

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage issues because the complaint is late without good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now and the courts are better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to permanently move a tenant from a social housing tenancy due to disrepair. We have no power to investigate complaints about the Council acting in its capacity as social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The complainant lives next door to a supported living property and has experienced damage to property, and assault. There are other bodies better placed to consider these concerns as they are for the police and insurance companies. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation, and we are satisfied with how the Council responded to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a disabled facilities grant. We are unlikely to find fault which has caused Mrs X to lose out on the grant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application for a Blue Badge for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has said it will provide her with a transport budget that does not cover the cost of transporting her child, Y, to his placement named in his Education, Health and Care Plan for the whole academic year. Mrs X says she is struggling to meet the travel costs and it has resulted in a lot of stress and worry. I have found fault with the Council’s transport policy, found evidence the Council did not apply the correct test as set out in law when considering Y’s application for transport, failed to provide Mrs X with a personal travel budget as promised and failed

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her daughter. Mrs X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling in relation to a school matter. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of fostering allowances. This is because the complaint is late, and there is no good reason for the delay in complaining to us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failing to respond to a telephone message and failing to provide emergency adult social care support. The Council’s initial two-day delay did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the delay affected the outcome that a suitable available placement could not be found. We would not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council breached data protection law. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to take the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child D’s eligibility for overnight respite care through its disabled children’s service. The Council made its decision properly that D should receive daytime short breaks but not overnight respite. However, it was at fault because it delayed its assessments and failed to consider Mrs X’s complaint via the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. This caused a delay in D receiving daytime short breaks, and avoidable time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remed

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about business grants under Covid-19 pandemic schemes. This is because it is late without good reason, and we could not investigate effectively so long after the events or achieve what Mr B seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of a light nuisance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council replied to his Council Tax account. It is unlikely that we would achieve more than the explanation it gave Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s decision to limit Mr X’s participation in the co-production board. The Council has since met with and written to Mr X to resolve his ongoing concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating a safeguarding concern in a matter involving Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council was at fault when it wrongly charged for social care provision for her adult son, Mr Y and did not help her with the associated disability-related expenditure (DRE) payments. Ms X also complained the Council sent her invoices when she was not Mr Y’s appointee. The Council was not at fault when it charged Mr Y for his social care provision and was not at fault for the help provided with Mr Y’s DRE payments. The Council was at fault for sending Ms X, Mr Y’s invoices when she was not Mr Y’s appointee. This caused Ms X frustration and the Council will apologise

Summary: Ms Z on behalf of her mother Mrs X, complained the Council delayed completing a financial assessment and then wrongly included a property in the assessment. resulting in no care home fees being paid and Mrs X given notice to leave care home. The Council failed to complete the financial assessment in a timely manner resulting in the care home giving Mrs X 28 days’ notice to leave the home. The Council should cover the full cost of the care home for the time Mrs X lived there.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to investigate his reports of nuisance caused by the smell of drug use by his neighbour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.