LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council wrongly assessed G’s application for free home to school transport using the law, and its policy, for post-16 pupils, when G was compulsory school age. It imposed a personal transport budget as G’s transport offer, when this required parental consent. It failed to notice its error at subsequent appeals. G’s parents had to divert funding provided for social care needs to get G to and from school, and some days G could not go to school. The family missed out on respite and G missed leisure activities social care had determined were needed to aid G’s development. The Council

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness. There was some delay and poor communication but the Council has already apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. I do not find fault in the rest of the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council housed him and his family in unsuitable accommodation and had poor standards of communication and complaint responses. He said this caused significant uncertainty, frustration and distress. We find the Council at fault for housing his family in unsuitable accommodation and some of its communication which caused injustice. We do not find fault with its complaint responses. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-application planning advice. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an invoice the Council issued. This is because the courts are better placed to consider the issue at the heart of his complaint, that of whether he should have to pay the invoice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council decision that cycle storage where she lives does not breach planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its decision.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council commissioned care provider, Bio Luminuex Healthcare Ltd, failed to provide suitable care and falsified records. Ms C also complains the Council failed to provide proper support for her mother, Mrs D, after she left a care home. The Council is at fault for failing to properly assess Mrs D’s needs before she returned to the community and for inadequate services it commissioned. To put things right the Council has agreed to waive an existing invoice of over £1700, apologise to Mrs D and Ms C for the distress and frustration its actions caused; and make service

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for a discretionary discount on her council tax. This is because Mrs X has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and her complaint is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused dropped kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s handling of Mrs X’s request for increased respite care and its complaint handling. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. In addition, the Council has already accepted and remedied the delays identified at earlier stages, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Right to Buy application. The Council accepts there was an error in the sale price used and has reinstated the offer, based on the valuation price. This puts Mr X back to the position he would have been in but for that error and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out an assessment of transport needs before making a decision to withdraw transport. The Council has already offered a remedy in line with our guidance and our involvement would not add anything to this investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act on reported breaches of planning control. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to allocate Ms X a property she successfully bid on. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports of a noise nuisance at a nearby school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to carry out a review of Mr X’s care needs in good time. This caused uncertainty that the Council fully understood his changing needs. The Council has a new policy to deal with people who are awaiting care need reviews, but it should also apologise to Mr X and his daughter who acts on his behalf, and make a symbolic payment to them both. There was no fault in how the Council handled the care charges. I have not investigated the other complaints brought on his behalf because these were not made to us on time.

Summary: Ms F complained on behalf of her mother that the Council failed to deal with possible breaches of planning control and building regulations by her neighbour. We found the Council failed to keep Ms F updated, causing her frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise for this. There was no fault in the way the Council decided there was no breach of planning control or in the actions it took in relation to a building control breach. There was delay and poor record keeping but this did not cause injustice to Ms F or her mother.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process which she says have caused significant distress. We find delay in the processing of Mrs Y’s DFG which the Council will acknowledge with an apology and a symbolic payment of £500. The Council will also progress Mrs Y’s DFG referral without further delay and create an action plan to help reduce delays in DFG processing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to supply information Mr X has requested from it about its enforcement of a penalty charge notice as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint because the Council delayed completing the annual review of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. It also missed the phased transfer deadline. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mr X a summons fee and its failure to respond to Mr X’s letters. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about nuisance neighbours. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s adult social care team who placed the neighbours at the property and is satisfied their needs are met there. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants to have the property closed and the neighbours moved. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

this complaint about the Council’s advice on a Right to Buy discount. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.