LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about officers not informing Ms X that she would not qualify for the housing register if she accepted a private rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax premium because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to send personal travel budget documents to Miss X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to determine a homelessness review within the required timescale. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the court for a determination of the review.

Summary: We have found fault causing injustice. The Council delayed and mishandled Mr X’s Single Person Discount application, proceeded to summons while eligibility for a backdated discount was unresolved, and communicated inconsistently, giving incorrect information about court costs and failing to follow recorded communication preferences.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbouring development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X is seeking.

Summary: Mr X, complained of the Council’s handling of his mother’s, Mrs X’s, care package. The Council provided Mrs X with a copy of the financial assessment letter including the personal budget without delay so it was not at fault. It also cancelled the care package when requested without fault. However, the Council was at fault for overcharging Mrs X for the hours of care she received and failed to provide Mrs X with a copy of the estimated personal budget. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mrs X the money it overcharged her by to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales for amending and finalising her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review. It also delayed providing additional funding to his school, which had been agreed to support his continued placement. These faults caused uncertainty and missed opportunities for securing alternative provision or placement sooner, amounting to injustice. However, there is limited evidence the missed funding directly deprived Y of support, as the school covered the shortfall. The Council has agreed to pay a fina

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable full-time education and failed to secure Section F provision of his EHCP during the 2023/24 academic year. The Council failed to implement the education package it proposed and did not secure the specialist dyslexia provision required in Y’s Plan. As a result, Y missed out on significant education and specialist support, and Ms X was caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about a child and family (CAF) assessment because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to make a Tree Preservation Order permanent even after his objections. We found the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mr X's comments. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty about the Council’s decision making. We recommended the Council should apologise and pay Mr X £300 to remedy the injustice its actions caused him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing permanent accommodation, the suitability of temporary accommodation and the decision to end the main housing duty. Part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and it was reasonable to expect Ms Y to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council transferred her son’s education, health and care (EHC) plan to the Council where she was housed in temporary accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide care and support services to her and her mother. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and because part of her complaint is made late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and failure in communication on the Council’s part. The fault the complainant has identified is not separable from the process of amending his daughter’s Education Health and Care plan and, as such, does not fall to be investigated by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because the Council agreed to reassess the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged by tree branches on the road. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax liability because he has used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of a property the Council offered her. She has the right to appeal, and it is reasonable to expect her to use it. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision on suitability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing allocation because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child, update her child’s Education, Health and Care

Summary: Mrs H complained about the care provided to her son, Mr G, by London Borough of Bromley, NHS South East London Integrated Care Board and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. We found fault by these organisations for their handling of Mr G’s discharge from hospital. This caused Mr G and Mrs H distress and uncertainty. The organisations will act to put matters right and review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: Mrs H complained about the care provided to her son, Mr G, by London Borough of Bromley, NHS South East London Integrated Care Board and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. We found fault by these organisations for their handling of Mr G’s discharge from hospital. This caused Mr G and Mrs H distress and uncertainty. The organisations will act to put matters right and review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: Mrs H complained about the care provided to her son, Mr G, by London Borough of Bromley, NHS South East London Integrated Care Board and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. We found fault by these organisations for their handling of Mr G’s discharge from hospital. This caused Mr G and Mrs H distress and uncertainty. The organisations will act to put matters right and review their policies and procedures to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it reached the decision to stop funding Mr Y’s speech and language therapy. It was at fault for failing to consider whether to increase Mr Y’s direct payments annually. It has already paid a backdated percentage increase which was an appropriate way to resolve this. It was at fault when it failed to pay invoices on time which meant the speech and language therapist cancelled some sessions. The Council has agreed to pay Mr Y the equivalent cost of the missed sessions so that he can privately pay for the missed provision.