LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained a social worker told lies about him and a relative. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council or achieve what Mr X wants.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his report of a statutory nuisance. We find the Council at fault for its poor communication. This left Mr X uncertain of the outcome of his report and unaware of the alternative options he could pursue. The Council has agreed to apologise and make improvements to its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax advice because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed identifying a special school place for her child, Y, which led to them missing education. Miss X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with suitable school transport. We cannot investigate Miss X’s concerns about Y’s education because she had a right of appeal to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) tribunal about Y’s school placement. We have ended this investigation about Y’s school transport. The Council has put in place service improvements, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide transport for Miss X’s child to start late each morning at school. This is because the Council reached its decision properly after considering the evidence Miss X provided, and we are therefore not able to substitute another view.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council refusing to agree their insurance claim for damage caused by its tree to their wall, and it not properly maintaining the tree. It is reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to pursue their legal liability claim at court.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there was a missed opportunity to explain the funding basis for the late Mr X’s care home placement and has waived the fees for the period when Mr X was deemed to be a short stay resident. That remedies any injustice arising from that complaint. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted the assessment of mental capacity.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has withheld information about a bid for funding. This is because the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on Code of Conduct complaints Mr X made against two councillors. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision his son is not eligible for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments as the matter has been remedied.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son, F’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when it was transferred over from another council area in September 2023. The Council failed to deal with F’s EHC Plan transfer in line with relevant law and guidance. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty and impacted on F’s education between September and November 2023. Events from November 2023 onwards are outside of our jurisdiction as Mr X has used his right of appeal to the SEND tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his child, F’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan during 2023. The Council delayed issuing F’s amended EHC Plan following two annual reviews during 2023. It also failed to give clear feedback about its decision not to include some provision in the plan. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice this caused. Mr X’s complaint about the decision not to include therapy provision in F’s EHC Plan is outside of our jurisdiction as he appealed this to the SEND tribunal.

Summary: Ms Y complained that professionals failed to understand her mother’s personality and wrongly determined she lacked capacity. Ms Y said this led to a decision to transfer her mother to a nursing home which caused her distress. In addition, she said it led to a hospital and a nursing home placing unnecessary restrictions on her mother. We have not found fault in the way professionals considered Mrs X’s capacity. However, we have found fault in the way a Council considered Mrs X’s best interests before placing her in a nursing home. This caused avoidable distress and we have recommended

Summary: Mr A has complained about a care agency and a Council after an investigation by the care agency into a pill found by carers at Ms B’s house. He said the investigation was inadequate and resulted in the care agency withdrawing care to Ms B. We did not investigate this case as we could not achieve more than what has already been achieved by the care agency’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care his mother, Mrs Z, receives. We do not accept Mr X as a suitable representative for Mrs Z.

Summary: Mr D says the Council delayed handling his high hedge application. We have found evidence of substantial delays by the Council. We have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress and implement procedural guidance for staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because there is another body better placed to deal with the complaint and we could not achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s council tax account as the case is now with another body, the Valuation Office Agency.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take court action and its actions during court proceedings. The law prevents us considering complaints about court processes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council denying responsibility for flooding of their back garden. The complaint amounts to a claim that the Council is liable for the flooding and damage to their property. We cannot make findings on legal liability for property damage. It would not be unreasonable for Mr and Mrs X to pursue their legal liability claim against the Council at court, to pursue the required legal finding and redress they seek.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care provided to Mrs Y. 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 we could add anything to the response the complainant’s have received from the Care Provider on behalf of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about education transport for Mr X’s daughter and other matters. Investigation of the transport complaint would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Matters concerning an assessment in 2016 are late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conclusion that the complainant poses a risk to staff. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained about the care and treatment his late grandmother, Ms Y, received at a Council commissioned Care Home, The Maple Care Home. The Care Home was at fault. There were errors in how the Care Home recorded information about Ms Y’s care and how it communicated information about Ms Y to other health care providers. The Council’s safeguarding investigation had identified the faults and put measures in place to improve its service. The Council will provide evidence to us the Care Home has implemented the service improvements. The Council has agreed it will also apologise to Mr X