LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence that the outcome is so flawed as to warrant our intervention.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her priority on the Council’s housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against people who littered outside Mr X’s home despite his evidence of them doing so. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an overpayment of housing benefit the Council is asking Mrs X to pay back. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mrs X was informed of her legal right to appeal to the specialist tribunal that deals with housing benefit appeals if she disagrees with the creation of the overpayment and it would have been reasonable to expect her to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Council delay in clearing glass from near her property. There was Council delay but there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. If Miss X considers the Council is responsible for damage to her car from the glass, that is a legal liability claim we cannot determine. It would be reasonable for her to pursue that claim with Council insurers and to the courts if required.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his late brother’s care and treatment during April to August 2021. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Mr X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. We are also unlikely to be able to make the findings sought by Mr X about his brother’s cause of death.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council arranged care for his late mother Mrs Y and how it dealt with him as her main carer and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs Y’s needs, in the advice given to Mr X or in the way it discussed finances with Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for failing to involve Mr X when Mrs Y was initially discharged home and there was a delay in the Council commissioned care home starting Mrs Y’s exercises. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, remind officers of the need

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with Childrens Social Care. The Council wrongly assessed the nature of the care arrangements and did not complete a review of financial support needed. Mrs X suffered financial hardship. The Council should complete a review of financial support.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mrs Y, that the Council did not inform her of her care charges and did not properly reach its decision about an intentional deprivation of assets. We found fault which caused injustice to Mrs X and Mrs Y. The Council should apologise and reconsider its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s dealings with a local charity. Some of the complaint is late and there is no reason the complaint could not have been brought to us sooner. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s responses and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for charging Ms B for her care from the day she returned home from hospital. It was entitled to do so under the Care Act. Ms B did not receive a period of free care under the government’s ‘discharge to assess’ scheme because her needs had already been assessed and planned for before she left hospital.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council is applying its school transport policy. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms B complained there was delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan) for her daughter, X. She also complained that the provision named in the plan was not suitable and the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for X while she was unable to attend school. She said that as a result X missed education and it caused stress to the whole family. There was fault by the Council which it will remedy by making a payment to Ms B and taking the action set out at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council treated a loan when it assessed the complainant’s care costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement action against Ms X’s neighbour for a breach of planning regulations. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a private hire taxi licence. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application made by Mrs X’s neighbour because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainants have also not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly closing the complainant’s council tax account, resulting in her owing £1600 in council tax. This is because the Council has agreed to issue an explanation and apology. We could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has delayed unnecessarily in assessing his brother, Mr Y’s social care needs and in agreeing to pay direct payments under the exceptional circumstances rule. The Council’s failure to communicate effectively with Mr X and the delays and lack of progress caused by repeated changes in social worker amount to fault. This fault caused Mr X frustration and distress for which the Council has apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Prior Approval application for a mobile phone mast. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, and it has apologised for the delay in responding to the subsequent complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mrs X’s vehicle crossing extension application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss C complains there was inadequate planning and communication about a change of equipment used to move and transfer her mother. Miss C says this led to the domiciliary care provider giving notice and her mother suffered avoidable distress. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, payment and review of internal communication provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult safeguarding enquiry.