LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s management of her late mother’s (Mrs Y) charges for non-residential care. We identified one area of fault because the Council failed to confirm whether it intended to pursue Mrs Y’s estate for unpaid client contributions from 2019. This caused Miss X uncertainty and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and confirm its position about this matter in writing. We found no fault with the Council’s response to more recent unpaid invoices.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education for her child, W, after they stopped attending school, and that it took too long to find another school for W. The Council was at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision in W’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for over a year. It was also at fault for delay issuing an amended version of W’s EHC Plan and for delay seeking a new school place for W. This meant W missed out on education they were entitled to, and Mrs X experienced undue frustration, upset and stress. To remedy their inju

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council is not giving her adult son, Mr Y, sufficient support to meet his needs. She says direct payments from the Council do not cover the cost of respite care and the Council will not allow her flexibility in how she spends the payments. She says she is struggling to care for Mr Y as he gets older and wants the Council to consider individual requests to spend the money. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to keep adequate records and failing to complete an investigation as promised. The Council has offered to cover the shortfall in the r

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of her son, Y, the Council failed to issue an EHC Plan within the statutory timescale. Miss X says this has resulted in Y being in an unsuitable setting and has caused both him and her family distress. We have found fault in the Councils actions for delaying in issuing the EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and make a financial payment and service improvements.

Summary: We have upheld one of Ms X’s complaints about a failure to ensure one of her husband’s medicines was re-supplied. There was also poor-record-keeping in relation to the support Mr X required at hospital appointments. Mrs X has already had an apology from the Care Home which acted on behalf of the Council. We do not uphold complaints about a failure to understand Mr X’s needs, to obtain medicine for a skin condition or about poor communication. The Care Home has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests for the provision of social care services for her daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pursuit of council tax debt. This is because the matter has either been made late or carried a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for her son in reasonable time when he transferred from primary to secondary school. I have found the Council at fault. It did not issue a final plan in line with the statutory guidance, and this caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council will apologise, recognise the delay this had on Mrs X’s appeal rights and take action to prevent reoccurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a councillor conduct complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. We found the Council delayed in completing some of the statutory complaint procedure. It agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise the distress this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. This is because the Council accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not be proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Code of Conduct complaint made against a local councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The complainant’s representative (Mrs X) complained about the Council’s failings when providing her son (Mr Y) with adult social care services and when charging him for care. We find the Council at fault for its failure to provide Mr Y and Mrs X as his main carer with a reviewed care and support plan and for its failure to make reasonable adjustments for Mr Y. This caused Mr Y injustice. We also find fault within a safeguarding process but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr Y. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment for his distress. The Council also agr

Summary: Mr C says a care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to provide any recompense for rings it lost, failed to explain how Mrs B had sustained a head injury and failed to recognise Mrs B had a urinary tract infection. The care home, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to follow its procedures for storing valuables and for dealing with falls and failed to complete records properly. An apology, payment to Mr C, liaison with the care home and Mr C to see whether an agreement can be reached on recompense for the rings and training for care staff is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s wall caused by the Council’s installation of an alley gate next to it. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to the courts which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to produce an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child Y. This is because Mrs X has appealed the decision at SEND Tribunal and the matter is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to arrange accommodation for their son and unnecessarily delayed making the required arrangements to allow a suitable placement to go ahead. The Council was not at fault for delays in the process to allow an identified placement to go ahead. However, the Council’s communications with Mr and Mrs B were at times overoptimistic and at other times did not provide sufficient information. An apology to Mr and Mrs B, payment to reflect their raised expectations and time and trouble and arrangement of a meeting with them to discuss options going forward is

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the adoption of the complainant’s son. This is because the matter has been decided in court.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to conduct an annual review or produce an EHC Plan for his grandchild Y for several years. He further complained the Council did not involve Y’s mother Ms S in its decision making or provide her with appeal rights and refused to investigate the complaints he raised about this. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed producing a final EHC Plan for Y, failed to invite Ms S to annual review and did not respond appropriately to complaints Mr X raised about this. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology, a £200 financial award and

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council caused delays when it reviewed her son’s Education, Health and Care plan, and it failed to put in place some agreed special educational needs provision. We found the Council caused unnecessary delays in reviewing the final amended EHC plan and to put in place the agreed provision for Mrs C’s son, including delays in arranging her direct payment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs C and make payment to acknowledge the distress and costs she had, including the loss of educational provision her son experienced.

Summary: Mr X complained about noise, vibration, and light intrusion due to changes to a major road junction near his home. He also complained of holes in his garden because of land movement during construction. Mr X said this caused stress and distress. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to check his DBS update status, resulting in him paying £70 for a new DBS certificate. This is because his injustice is not the result of any fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a grant funding scheme. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the grant applications, and the Council has satisfactorily addressed other parts of the complaint.