LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the outcome of Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council’s occupational therapy assessments of her children. The Council acted with fault by not considering Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. But as we do not consider the Council carried out those assessments with fault, we have not asked the Council to reconsider the complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Council should share this decision with staff to ensure learning.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to resolve his concerns about shops leaving refuse collection bins on the public highway and in parking bays. He says the bins often overflow, which attracts fly tipping. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr X’s concerns and for its communication with him. This caused him frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and complete a detailed review of the issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out Mrs X’s service request, relating to road markings. Any injustice the Council’s actions has caused her, is not a significant personal injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome she is looking for.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the quality of care her brother, Mr Y, received from the Council up to 2023. The Council has investigated Ms X’s concerns, provided a detailed reply and offered to meet with her to help resolve any outstanding concerns. We could not add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcomes Ms X wants, especially as Mr Y is in hospital and any future plan for his discharge will include reviewing his current needs for care and support.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain trees and hedges which are causing obstructions to the public highway. This is because the Council has taken the steps it considers necessary to deal with the issue and it is not for us to say it must do more. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council has handled his homelessness application; the Council officer’s conduct; disrepair issues at his temporary accommodation; and delay in providing an occupational therapy assessment. We find the Council was at fault for delay in dealing with his review request; delay in providing an occupational therapy assessment and failing to consider his reports around disrepair issues. This caused him significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay with adaption works completed under a disabled facilities grant. He says this was caused by delayed payments. He also complains about the Council’s decision to partially refund him for the services of a surveyor which he considered unnecessary. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council allegedly failing to refer Mr X’s family for further help. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has carried out a flawed Care Act assessment of her daughter’s (Y) needs. Mrs X says as a result her daughter did not get the level of care and support she needs which has caused distress and uncertainty. The Council was not at fault as it carried out the assessment in line with the Care Act.

Summary: X complained the Council failed to take planning enforcement action against their neighbour. We found fault because the Council could not take enforcement action it had intended. This was because it failed to serve papers to a court within time. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will now review its working practices, policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of the same fault happening again.

Summary: X complained the Council failed to take planning enforcement action against their neighbour. We found fault because the Council could not take enforcement action it had intended. This was because it failed to serve papers to a court within time. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and will now review its working practices, policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of the same fault happening again.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged lack of action by the Council to take enforcement action in respect of alleged breaches of planning consent. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. The Council is actively considering its enforcement powers and taking decisions accordingly as it is expected to do.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act upon a safeguarding referral. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to transport and highway safety concerns raised by Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay her mother’s full care home fees and its decision that her mother can be safely moved to a cheaper care home. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault.

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 complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care provider. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the care provider responded to the complaint. We could not add to the care providers response and there is no worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The person using the service has now moved so is no longer receiving support from the care provider complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Nor will we consider the part of the complaint about the complaint’s process as we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she and her dog came to harm due to the Council’s failure to maintain a green space. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue this matter at court.

Summary: Mrs B complains that her son’s care provider did not provide adequate care to her son before he was admitted to hospital and says there was poor communication from the care provider. She also says the Council did not properly investigate her complaints or communicate with her. We have found fault as there were instances of poor communication from the care provider and from the Council and this would have added to the distress the family experienced. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family and to ensure that the service improvements that had previously been agreed have been i

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review and a request to change school placement. We have found the Council at fault for delays during the annual review process. This caused Mrs X and her daughter avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the withdrawal of a school place. This is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school. We have no powers to investigate when this is the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We will not exercise discretion to investigate the offers of housing made to her in 2021 because this is outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Summary: The Council failed to provide support to Mr B with applying to charities for a carpet which he said he needed to be able to use his wheelchair upstairs and it failed to carry out a review when he said his care needs had increased. It also wrongly decided that Mr B had been overpaid direct payments and told his carer that they would not get paid, which contributed to Mr B being left without care. The Council later decided to stop paying direct payments to Mr B but failed to follow the correct process. The Council also delayed dealing with Mr B’s application for the household support fu