LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a health scheme. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her son’s Education Health and Care plan and refused to investigate her complaint about this. The Council has agreed to Ms X’s complaint so we ended our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains on her own and her mother’s behalf about the Council’s handling of their needs and care assessments. There was no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach. It remains open to Mrs X and Mrs Y to meet with the Council to resolve any outstanding issues and progress needs and carers assessments.

Summary: Mrs X complains on her own and her mother’s behalf about the Council’s handling of their needs and care assessments. There was no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach. It remains open to Mrs X and Mrs Y to meet with the Council to resolve any outstanding issues and progress needs and carers assessments.

Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel considered her appeal regarding a place for her daughter at a grammar school. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in providing clarity regarding its financial assessment. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to share information with Mr X about the steps it has taken to improve its service, and we are satisfied this is appropriate to remedy the injustice he experienced.

Summary: Mrs M complains about delay issuing her son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council took four months too long, and the delay meant B was unable to start his secondary education at his new school in September 2021. The Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council disclosed and evidence it withheld negatively affecting a court case. The matters complained of are not separable from the court process and either were or could have been raised in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s view of who may safely care for children. The complaint concerns the Council’s view as expressed in a court report and the matter complained of is thus not separable from a court process.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the suitability the care provided to Mr X’s daughter whilst she was a looked after child. This is because the substantive matter was dealt with at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council liability for the regular flooding of Mr X’s property which takes place. This is because Mr X has a legal remedy against the Council which we would reasonably expect him to use and so places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council, in its role as a Lead Flood Authority, failed to take enforcement action against her neighbour for works to his garden which impacted their underground drainage system. As a result, she said she experienced distress due to flooding of her garden and risk of flooding to her property. She also had financial costs to flood proof her property. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view not to take any formal action. We cannot therefore criticise the merit of its decision.

Summary: Dr B complains the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan following a re-assessment of her daughter’s needs. The Council has accepted there was a delay in issuing the Plan. We find the Council was also at fault for failing to promptly request advice from professionals involved in her daughter’s care. This caused Dr B distress and she was put to time and trouble. Dr B’s daughter missed out on certain provision in her Plan. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Dr B and her daughter and make them a payment. It has also agreed to make certain servi

Summary: Mr D complained that the Council failed for two years to provide 69 nights per year respite care for his son, Mr E. This has caused intolerable stress to the whole family and significant time and trouble for Mr D in chasing up the Council. We have found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D £1500, confirm the respite provision every 2 months at Centre Z and to make every effort with Mr D, to source suitable alternatives for the remaining nights.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the charges for her father’s care, resulting in him being sent a bill for backdated charges which he was not expecting. There has been no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street lighting. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled the complaint where we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the damage caused to the complainant’s worktop. It would be reasonable for the complainant to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the delay in receiving an overpayment for her late mother’s, Mrs C’s, care charges. This is because the Council has refunded the monies owed to the estate and there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has not accepted liability for her personal injury and property damage after she tripped on an open inspection cover on the highway. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to take the Council to court, which is the body best positioned to decide her claim and provide the outcomes she seeks.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to carry out road drainage works to prevent flooding at his property. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is not allowing her to have unsupervised contact with her adult daughter and that it said it would apply to the Court of Protection to resolve this and it has not done so. There was no fault in the way the Council reached a best interests decision that Mrs X’s contact with her daughter should be supervised. The Council failed to approach the Court of Protection despite repeatedly saying it would do so and this was fault. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to apologise for the frustration this caused, confirm the contact arrangements with her daughter,

Summary: the Council was not at fault in its refusal to provide care and support to Ms B. There was no fault in how it made its decision, so we cannot question the decision itself.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council failed to make ‘reasonable endeavours’ to provide for their son, Z’s, special educational needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council failed to properly consider and make ‘reasonable endeavours’ to arrange Z’s special education when there was an alternative provider available. It also failed to review Z’s personal budget to meet increased costs and to meet other costs Mr X and Ms Y incurred due to fault for which it was responsible. It agreed to apologise, pay these costs and review similar cases.