LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: there was a communications failure between Council departments which meant the decision of a Best Interest Meeting about Mr X was not properly disseminated. As a result, the Council did not share information which it could reasonably have done with Mr A and Ms B. The Council should apologise to Mr A and Mrs B and put things right going forward.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a dropped kerb. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the way North East Lincolnshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board decided how much to pay towards his direct payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the way North East Lincolnshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board decided how much to pay towards his direct payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr P’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the way North East Lincolnshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board decided how much to pay towards his direct payment.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr X and his child that he says amounted to libel and defamation. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that formed part of court proceedings. Mr X is also seeking the imposition of a significant financial penalty, which only a court could imposer if it found there was liable or defamation. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to take this matter to court. Finally, only a court or the information Commisioner’s Office could order the disclosure of documents.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to follow government guidance on assessing blue badge applicants who have hidden disabilities. Its expert assessment was a cursory email which did not allow Mr X the chance to explain how his mental health conditions may mean he suffers very considerable psychological distress when walking. The Council will apologise, make Mr X a symbolic payment to reflect his avoidable distress and reconsider his application having regard to relevant parts of the government guidance.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for much of how its children’s social work team handled her unborn baby’s case. However, there were some failures in risk management and, in particular, record-keeping. There was also a delay to the Council’s response to one of Mrs B’s complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: Mr C complained the appeal to consider Ms B’s disability related expenditure did not properly address itself to the relevant issues. As a result she did not receive all the allowance she should. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of the appeal. It will calculate the amount of the payments Ms B should have received and make any payment to her estate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Council actions that concern Miss X’s contact with her children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from matters which form part of or could reasonably form part of court proceedings.

Summary: There is no fault leading up to the Council’s decision that it will not pay for a child’s school lunches. The child’s Education, Health and Care plan does not specify the Council should pay lunch costs. And the Ombudsman cannot resolve the disagreement over the interpretation of a point of law, as this is ultimately for the courts to decide if both parties cannot agree.

The two-week delay in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan did not cause injustice. There was a failure to secure some of Y’s provision. This had a negative impact on his attainment. The Council will apologise to Y and make a payment to him and to his mother Ms X for her avoidable time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve the complainant with a Noise Abatement Order. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his legal right to appeal against the serving of the order in court and to have raised these matters as part of his defence.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her financial assessment and did not give clear reasons for its outcome causing distress and financial difficulties. We found the Council at fault for its delay and poor communications. We recommended the Council offer to meet with Ms X to address any remaining queries and take action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs X complains the care provider acting for the Council has failed to address concerns raised by her and the provider has overcharged for care hours. Mrs X says this has caused distress to Mr and Mrs B and means they have been overcharged for their care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the care provider for how it logged the care for Mr and Mrs B, however, this did not cause injustice to them. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council and the Care Provider for how other incidents were handled, and for failing to consider the distress caused to Mr and Mrs B. The Council has agree

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s service of a summons for unpaid council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council’s blanket ban on care home residents visiting people outside a care home when there were cases of COVID-19 in the care home prevented her father from visiting her on a number of occasions since September 2021. Based on the evidence seen so far, the Council was at fault for failing to acknowledge Government guidance was open to interpretation and it had chosen to interpret in a particular way. However, this did not cause injustice to Miss X or her father, as they knew there was no legal power to stop him from leaving the care home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not following COVID 19 guidance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Ms Y by the Council. This is because parts of the complaint are about events which happened too long ago for us to investigate now. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its recent decision regarding financial contributions Ms Y was required to make towards her care. The Council has also provided an suitable remedy for significant delays in responding to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council’s enforcement agent pursued a parking penalty charge notice debt. There is no Council fault.